certain preserved mushrooms from chile, china, india, and ...certain preserved mushrooms from chile,...

Certain Preserved Mushrooms FromChile, China, India, and Indonesia

Investigations Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Review)

Publication 3731 October 2004

U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications toSecretary to the Commission

United States International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436

Christopher J. Cassise, InvestigatorTimothy McCarty, Industry Analyst

Amelia Preece, EconomistChand Mehta, AccountantMark Bernstein, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Statistician

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Staff assigned

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Stephen Koplan, ChairmanDeanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Marcia E. MillerJennifer A. HillmanCharlotte R. LaneDaniel R. Pearson

U.S. International Trade CommissionWashington, DC 20436

Publication 3731 October 2004

www.usitc.gov

Certain Preserved Mushrooms FromChile, China, India, and Indonesia


i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Separate and concurring views of Chairman Koplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Separate and concurring views of Commissioner Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Additional and dissenting views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1Commerce’s results of expedited reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10Commerce’s scope rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1U.S. market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4Financial experience of the U.S. industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4The industry in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5The industry in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7The industry in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

ii

CONTENTS

PageAppendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1D. U.S. producers’, U.S. importers’, U.S. purchasers’, and foreign producers’ comments

regarding the effects of the antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation . . D-1E. U.S. purchasers’ sources of certain preserved mushrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1F. Channels of distribution by country and types of end users, and by size of containers . . . . . . . F-1G. Additional price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be publishedand therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissents with regard to Indonesia.

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


CERTAIN PRESERVED MUSHROOMS FROM CHILE, CHINA, INDIA, AND INDONESIA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1 developed in these subject five-year reviews, the United StatesInternational Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain preservedmushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia2 would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrenceof material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62322) and determinedon February 6, 2004 that it would conduct full reviews (69 FR 7793, February 19, 2004). Notice of thescheduling of the Commission’s reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith wasgiven by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on May 18, 2004 (69 FR 28156). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2004, and all persons who requested theopportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

1 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on preservedmushrooms from Indonesia would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industrywithin the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Additional and Dissenting Views ofCommissioner Daniel R. Pearson. He joins all portions of this opinion except sections III.D and IV.D. 2 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144 (Nov. 1998)(“Original Chile Determination”). 3 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final), USITCPub. 3159 (Feb. 1999) (“Original Indonesia Determination”). 4 63 Fed. Reg. 66529 (Dec. 2, 1998). 5 63 Fed. Reg. 8308-12 (Feb. 19, 1999). 6 68 Fed. Reg. 39521 (July 2, 2003). 7 68 Fed. Reg 62322 (Nov. 3, 2003). 8 See 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the TariffAct of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preservedmushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrenceof material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1998, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States wasmaterially injured by reason of less than fair value (LTFV) imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile.2 In February 1999, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injuredby reason of LTFV imports of preserved mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia.3 The U.S.Department of Commerce (Commerce) issued antidumping duty orders with respect to imports fromChile on December 2, 1998,4 and with respect to imports from China, India, and Indonesia on February19, 1999.5 Commerce subsequently revoked the order with respect to imports from Indonesia in part.6

The Commission instituted the instant reviews on November 3, 2003, to determine whetherrevocation of the orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likelyto lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.7

In five-year reviews, the Commission initially determines whether to conduct a full review(which would include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or anexpedited review. In order to make this decision, the Commission first determines whether individualresponses to the notice of institution are adequate. Next, based on those responses deemed individuallyadequate, the Commission determines whether the collective responses submitted by two groups ofinterested parties – domestic interested parties (such as producers, unions, trade associations, or workergroups) and respondent interested parties (such as importers, exporters, foreign producers, tradeassociations, or subject country governments) – demonstrate a sufficient willingness among each group toparticipate and provide information requested in a full review. If the Commission finds the responsesfrom both groups of interested parties adequate, or if other circumstances warrant, it will determine toconduct a full review.8

The Commission received responses to the notice of institution from one domestic interestedparty, the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade (“the Coalition”). The Coalition consists of four

9 Members of the Coalition that currently produce preserved mushrooms include L.K. Bowman, Inc., MontereyMushrooms, Inc., Mushroom Canning Co., and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc. Each of these firms was a member of theCoalition in the original investigations. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final),USITC Pub. 3144 at I-1 (Nov. 1998). 10 The Indonesian Respondents are P.T. Dieng Djaya, P.T. Sura Jaya Abadi Perkasa, P.T. Karya Kompos Bagas,P.T. Eka Timur Raya, and P.T. Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. 11 Commission Statement on Adequacy (Feb. 11, 2004). 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v.United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

4

domestic producers of preserved mushrooms and was the petitioner in the original investigations.9 It alsoreceived a response from a group of five Indonesian producers and exporters of the subject merchandise(“Indonesian Respondents”).10 The Commission found that domestic interested party response wasadequate for each of the reviews, and that the respondent interested party response was adequate for thereview on Indonesia but inadequate for the other three reviews. The Commission determined to conductfull reviews with respect to all four reviews to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision toconduct a full review with respect to the order concerning Indonesia.11

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic likeproduct” and the “industry.”12 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, orin the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigationunder this subtitle.”13

In its final results of the expedited sunset reviews it conducted with respect to imports from allfour subject countries, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the antidumpingorders as:

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The “preserved mushrooms”covered under the orders are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved bycleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing and cutting. These mushrooms are thenpacked and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jars in asuitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Included within the scope of the order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted andpacked in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Also included within the scope of the orders, as of June 19, 2000, are marinated,acidified, or pickled mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

Excluded from the scope of the orders are the following: (1) all other species ofmushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including

14 69 Fed. Reg. 11385 (March 10, 2004). 15 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 4-5. 16 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 5-6. 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been toinclude in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captivelyconsumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conductedin the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 18 “Raw agricultural product” is defined as any farm or fishery product. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(iv).

5

“refrigerated” or “quick blanched” mushrooms; (3) dried mushrooms; and (4) frozenmushrooms.14

In the original investigations, the Commission found a single domestic like product coextensivewith the scope definition. It rejected arguments that fresh mushrooms should be included in the domesticlike product on the grounds that there were significant differences between fresh and preservedmushrooms with respect to appearance, flavor, shelf life, channels of distribution, production methods,customer perception, and price.15 It rejected arguments that marinated mushrooms should be included inthe domestic like product because there were significant differences between the end uses of marinatedmushrooms and preserved mushrooms, very limited interchangeability between the two products, anddifferences in producer and customer perceptions and price.16

The Coalition argues that in these reviews the Commission should again define a single domesticlike product coextensive with the scope definition. Respondents did not provide any alternative likeproduct definitions.

Reviewing the record and the limited arguments of the parties, we see no basis for departing fromthe domestic like product definition the Commission used in the original investigations. There is noevidence in the record of these reviews with respect to the factors the Commission examines in itsdomestic like product analysis that supports revisiting the definition of the domestic like product. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the original determinations, we continue to define a single domesticlike product coextensive with the scope definition.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a wholeof a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like productconstitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”17 In light of our definitionof the domestic like product, there are two sets of domestic industry issues in these five-year reviews. The first concerns whether growers of fresh mushrooms should be included in the domestic industrypursuant to the statutory grower/processor provision codified at section 771(4)(E) of the Act. The secondconcerns whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude certain producers of preserved mushroomsfrom the domestic industry pursuant to the statutory related parties provision.

1. Grower/Processor Provision

In cases involving processed agricultural products, section 771(4)(E) of the Act authorizes theCommission to include growers’ agricultural input within the domestic industry producing the processedagricultural product if the processed agricultural product is produced from the raw product18 through asingle continuous line of production, and there is a substantial coincidence of economic interest between

19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(i). 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(ii). 21 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 7. 22 Coalition Prehearing Brief at 6-7. 23 Confidential Report (CR) at I-16 n.19, Public Report (PR) at I-13 n.19. 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 25 Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d without opinion, 904F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). Theprimary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude therelated parties include: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) thereason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefitsfrom the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production andcompete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producers vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e.,whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g.,Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for relatedproducers and whether the primary interests of the related producers lie in domestic production or in importation. See, e.g., Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-741-743 (Final),USITC Pub. 3016 (Feb. 1997) at 14, n.81.

6

the growers and processors based upon relevant economic factors.19 Under the Act, the processed productis considered to be processed from the raw product in a single continuous line of production if the rawagricultural product is substantially or completely devoted to the production of the processed agriculturalproduct, and the processed agricultural product is produced substantially or completely from the rawproduct.20

In the original investigations, the Commission concluded that growers of fresh mushrooms shouldnot be included in the domestic industry pursuant to the statutory grower/processor provision. Itconcluded that the single continuous line of production requirement was not satisfied, because only aminority of fresh mushrooms was processed in any manner.21

In these five-year reviews, the Coalition argues that the requirements for applying thegrower/processor provision are again not satisfied; no party has argued to the contrary.22 The recordindicates that, for the most recent crop year for which information is available, only 16.9 percent ofdomestically-produced mushrooms were processed; the remainder were sold as fresh mushrooms.23 Consequently, as in the original investigations, the raw product is not substantially or completely devotedto the production of the processed product. Thus, the requirement of the statutory grower/processorprovision that there be a single continuous line of production is not satisfied. Accordingly, we do notinclude growers of fresh mushrooms in the domestic industry.

2. Related Parties

We next determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded fromthe domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act. This provision of the statute allows theCommission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that arerelated to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.24 Exclusionof such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each case.25

26 USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). 27 The Coalition argues that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude ***. Respondents did not addressthe issue.

The record further indicates that two other domestic producers, ***, also purchased subject merchandisefrom India and/or China during the period of review. The Commission has concluded that a domestic producer thatdoes not itself import subject merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, maynonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found suchcontrol to exist when the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant portion of an importer’s purchasesand the importer’s purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final),USITC Pub. 3449 at 8-9 (Sept. 2001); Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France, India,Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Macedonia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-392, 731-TA-815-822 (Preliminary), USITCPub. 3181 at 12 (April 1999).

*** purchased *** pounds of subject merchandise from China in 2003. CR/PR, Table III-4. Thesepurchases constituted only *** percent of subject imports from China during 2003, and were equivalent to ***percent of *** domestic production that year. CR/PR, Tables III-4, IV-1. These purchases clearly are notsubstantial.

*** purchased *** pounds of subject merchandise from China and *** pounds of subject merchandise fromIndia during 2002, and *** pounds of subject merchandise from China and *** pounds of subject merchandise fromIndia during 2003. CR/PR, Table III-4. In 2002 and 2003, respectively, *** purchases constituted *** and ***percent of total subject imports from China and *** percent and *** percent of total subject imports from India. Itscombined purchases from China and India were equivalent to *** percent of its U.S. production in 2002 and ***percent of its U.S. production in 2003. CR/PR, Tables III-3, IV-1. While *** purchases of subject imports,particularly in 2003, were not minor, there is no indication in the record that would support a conclusion that *** isresponsible for a predominant portion of any importer’s purchases, particularly inasmuch as the firm uses differentimporters depending on the source of its imports; see *** Importers’ Questionnaire Response, response to questionII-11, and the purchases do not constitute a large proportion of total imports from either subject country.

We consequently conclude that neither *** nor *** should be considered to be a related party producer onthe basis of its purchasing activities. 28 CR/PR, Table I-2. 29 CR/PR, Table III-4. *** also purchased subject merchandise from China in 2002 and 2003 and from India in2001, 2002, and 2003. The ratio of the sum of these purchases and *** direct imports to the firm’s domesticproduction was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, and *** percent in 2003. Id. 30 CR/PR, Table III-4. 31 CR/PR, Table III-9.

7

The purpose of the provision is to exclude domestic producers that substantially benefit from theirrelationships with foreign exporters.26

The record indicates that one domestic producer, ***, imported subject merchandise from Indiaand Indonesia during the period of review. We must consequently determine whether appropriatecircumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision.27

*** is the *** U.S. producer of preserved mushrooms, accounting for *** percent of totalindustry production in 2003.28 *** imported from India *** pounds of subject merchandise in 2000, ***pounds in 2001, and *** pounds in 2002. It imported *** pounds of subject merchandise from Indonesiain 2000. The ratio of these imports to *** domestic production was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in2001, and *** percent in 2002.29 *** states that it imports subject merchandise ***.30 *** operatingmargin *** during only one year of the period of review – 2000, when *** had the *** margin in theindustry. By contrast, beginning in 2001, *** operating margins were *** and it had either the *** or*** margin in the industry.31

Although it appears that *** imports subject merchandise to take advantage of attractive pricing(notwithstanding the existence of the orders), its financial performance over the period of review does not

32 CR/PR, Table I-2. 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 35 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994). 36 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Hillman and Millerregarding the application of the “no discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittingsfrom Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348(Review) USITC Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000). For a further discussion of Chairman Koplan’s analytical framework, seeIron Metal Construction Castings from India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron ConstructionCastings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review); 701-TA-249 (Review); and 731-TA-262,263, and 265 (Review) USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct. 1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan RegardingCumulation).

(continued...)

8

indicate that its use of subject merchandise resulted in financial benefits relative to other domesticproducers during the period of review. Moreover, *** has a substantial U.S. production presence, is theindustry’s *** producer, and *** maintaining the antidumping duty orders.32 We conclude thatappropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry pursuant to the relatedparties provision.

Accordingly, we define a single domestic industry consisting of all U.S. producers of preservedmushrooms.

III. CUMULATION

A. Framework

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect ofimports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect towhich reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated onthe same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with each otherand with domestic like products in the United States market. TheCommission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects ofimports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines thatsuch imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on thedomestic industry.33

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. However, the Commission may exerciseits discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commissiondetermines that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product inthe U.S. market. The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from acountry are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.34 We note that neitherthe statute nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action(“SAA”) provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining thatimports “are likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.35 With respect to thisprovision, the Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likelyimpact of those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders arerevoked.36

36 (...continued)For a discussion of the analytical framework of Vice Chairman Okun regarding the application of the “no

discernible adverse impact” provision, see Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, andthe United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-320, 332, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350(Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review), USITC Pub. 3526 (Nov.2002). 37 68 Fed. Reg. 62280 (Nov. 3, 2003). 38 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether subject imports compete witheach other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from differentcountries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customerrequirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographicalmarkets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similarchannels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether theimports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50(CIT 1989). 39 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been investigationswhere the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subjectimports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-812-813(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattleman Action Legal Foundation v.United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (CIT 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republicof Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998). 40 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not tocumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniformand import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. UnitedStates, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (CIT 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (CIT 1988).

9

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on thesame day is satisfied as Commerce initiated all the reviews on November 3, 2003.37

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework fordetermining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.38 Only a“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.39 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whetherthere likely would be competition even if none currently exists. Moreover, because of the prospectivenature of five-year reviews, we have examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors,but also other significant conditions of competition that are likely to prevail if the suspendedinvestigations under review are terminated. The Commission has considered factors in addition to itstraditional competition factors in other contexts where cumulation is discretionary.40

41 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144, Table IV-1. 42 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144, Table IV-3. 43 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 44 CR at IV-5, PR at IV-4. See also Coalition Posthearing Brief, ex. 2 (Chilean producer, known in originalinvestigations as Nature’s Farm, currently manufactures and exports preserved mushrooms under the trade nameBosques Del Mauro). 45 INV-W-005, Table VII-1 (Jan. 20, 1999). 46 CR/PR, Figure IV-1. 47 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at V-13. 48 In its second administrative review, Commerce expressly stated that the deposit rate applicable to the Chileanproducer encompassed merchandise transshipped through Colombia. 67 Fed. Reg. 31769, 31770 (May 10, 2002).

10

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

Based on the record, we find that subject imports from each of the four subject countries wouldnot be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry were the orders revoked.

1. Chile

In the original investigations, the quantity of subject imports from Chile declined from 10.7million pounds in 1995 to 7.1 million pounds in 1996 and then to 5.4 million pounds in 1997, but washigher in interim (January-June) 1998 than in interim 1997.41 The market penetration of subject importsfrom Chile declined from 4.6 percent in 1995 to 2.8 percent in 1997.42 In 1998, there were 6.5 millionpounds of subject imports from Chile. Since then, there have been no imports of subject merchandisefrom Chile.43

The Chilean producer of preserved mushrooms did not respond to the Commission questionnairein the five-year reviews.44 The data collected in the original investigations indicate that annual Chileancapacity utilization ranged between *** and *** percent, that for each full year less than *** percent ofshipments went to the home market, and that annually between *** and *** percent of shipments wereexported to the United States.45 Public data indicate that total exports of canned mushrooms from Chiledeclined severely in 1999 after imposition of the order. Between 2000 and 2002, exports ranged from 2.4million to 5.0 million pounds. The latter figure is still well below the peak export levels reported duringthe original period of investigation.46

The most recent pricing data concerning subject imports from Chile are from the originalinvestigations, which showed a mixed pattern of overselling and underselling.47

In our view, the cessation of subject imports from Chile after 1998 is a function of the order. Should the order be revoked, we believe that it is likely that imports from Chile will return to the U.S.market, in light of the importance of the U.S. market to the Chilean producer prior to issuance of theorder, and the producer’s apparent inability since issuance of the order to export to other markets aquantity of preserved mushrooms comparable to the quantity that it exported to the United States duringthe original period of investigation. Indeed, the Chilean producer made some efforts to enter the U.S.market indirectly during the period of review by exporting brined mushrooms (which are subjectmerchandise) from Chile to third countries, where they were canned and transhipped to the UnitedStates.48 Additionally, we find that imports from all subject sources are at least moderate substitutes withthe domestic like product, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. In light ofthese factors, we do not find that subject imports from Chile will have no discernible adverse impact onthe domestic industry if the order were revoked.

49 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1. These volumes include imports transshippedfrom Hong Kong. 50 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-3. 51 CR/PR, Table I-5. 52 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table VII-2. 53 CR/PR, Figure IV-2. 54 CR/PR, Table V-5. 55 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1. 56 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-3.

11

2. China

In the original investigations, the quantity of subject imports from China declined from 75.6million pounds in 1995 to 72.8 million pounds in 1996, and then to 71.1 million pounds in 1997, but washigher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997.49 Market penetration increased from 31.5 percent in 1995 to34.8 percent in 1997.50 There were 48.0 million pounds of subject imports from China in 1998. Subjectimport quantity from China then declined severely to 320,000 pounds in 1999. Quantities subsequentlyincreased every year, reaching 48.1 million pounds in 2003. In 2003 the market penetration of subjectimports from China was 25.6 percent.51

No Chinese producer of preserved mushrooms responded to the Commission questionnaire in thefive-year reviews. The data collected in the original investigations indicate that annual Chinese capacityutilization ranged between 57.5 and 92.5 percent, that 4.5 percent or less of shipments went to the homemarket, and that annually between 46.0 and 57.9 percent of shipments were exported to the UnitedStates.52 Public data indicate that total exports of canned mushrooms from China have increased since1999, and reached 501.8 million pounds in 2002.53

Subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product during 34 of 52 quarterlycomparisons during the period of review.54

The record consequently indicates that subject imports from China initially declined afterimposition of the order but then increased rapidly, and are currently present in the market in appreciablequantities. These imports predominantly undersell the domestic like product. Additionally, the preservedmushroom industry in China is export-oriented. Moreover, we find that imports from all subject sourcesare at least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product, and that price is an importantconsideration in purchasing decisions. In light of these factors, we do not find that subject imports fromChina will have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

3. India

In the original determinations, the quantity of subject imports from India declined from 6.0million pounds in 1995 to 4.4 million pounds in 1996, increased to 9.9 million pounds in 1997, and washigher in interim 1998 than interim 1997.55 Market penetration increased from 2.5 percent in 1995 to 4.9percent in 1997.56 There were 12.6 million pounds of subject imports from India in 1998. In 1999, thequantity of subject imports from India jumped to 32.0 million pounds. Subject import quantities fromIndia peaked in 2000, and then declined irregularly throughout the remainder of the period of review.

57 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 58 CR/PR, Table I-5. 59 CR/PR, Table IV-3. 60 CR/PR, Table V-5. This is true regardless of ***. 61 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1. 62 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-3. 63 CR/PR, Tables I-5, IV-1. 64 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-8. Consequently, the data in the report understate subject Indonesian producers’capacity between 1998 and 2001.

12

Subject import quantity from India in 2003 was 27.0 million pounds.57 In 2003, the market penetration ofthese imports was 14.4 percent.58

Two Indian producers of preserved mushrooms responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. Their capacity increased from *** pounds in 1999 to *** pounds in 2003. Capacity utilization was ***percent in 2003, which was its highest level since 1999. The maximum percentage of home marketshipments in any year was *** percent. The proportion of shipments exported to the United States rangedfrom *** percent (in 2002) to *** percent (in 2001), and was *** percent in 2003.59 During the period ofreview, subject imports from India undersold the domestic like product in the majority of quarterlycomparisons.60

The record consequently indicates that subject imports from India are currently present in themarket in appreciable quantities, have increased on an annual basis by large amounts during the period ofreview, and predominantly undersell the domestic like product. Additionally, the preserved mushroomindustry in India relies heavily on exports to the United States and has available unused capacity. Moreover, we find that imports from all subject sources are at least moderate substitutes with thedomestic like product, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. In light ofthese factors, we do not find that subject imports from India will have no discernible adverse impact onthe domestic industry if the order were revoked.

4. Indonesia

During the original period of investigation, the quantity of subject imports from Indonesiadeclined from 30.8 million pounds in 1995 to 26.9 million pounds in 1996, increased to 31.8 millionpounds in 1997, and was lower in interim 1998 than in interim 1997.61 U.S. market penetration for theseimports increased from 12.8 percent in 1995 to 15.5 percent in 1997.62 There were 26.7 million pounds ofsubject imports from Indonesia in 1998. Subject import quantity increased in 1999 to 29.1 millionpounds, and then declined throughout the remainder of the period of review. Some of the declines wereattributable to the revocation of the order with respect to PT Zeta Agro in February 2002, after which timeimports from that firm became nonsubject. The quantity of subject imports from Indonesia in 2003 was*** pounds, and the U.S. market penetration for these imports was *** percent.63

Five Indonesian producers of subject merchandise submitted responses to the Commission’squestionnaire; the aggregated information that the Commission collected for the Indonesian industry inthese five-year reviews does not contain any data from PT Zeta Agro.64 These producers’ reportedcapacity was *** pounds in 1998, 1999, and 2000, *** pounds in 2001, *** pounds in 2002, and ***pounds in 2003. Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2003, and during the period of review rangedbetween *** and *** percent. No more than *** percent of shipments for any year during the period of

65 CR/PR, Table IV-4. 66 CR at IV-13-14, PR at IV-8. 67 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8 n.20. 68 This is true regardless of ***. The pricing data pertaining to subject imports from Indonesia are discussed ingreater detail in section IV.D.2. below and in the separate opinions of Chairman Koplan, Commissioner Lane, andCommissioner Pearson. 69 Consequently, General Mills’ argument that subject import volumes from Indonesia are not likely to increase isnot supported by the Indonesian producers’ own questionnaire responses. 70 Commissioner Lane does not join the remainder of this opinion, except as specified in her additional views. See Additional Views of Commissioner Lane. 71 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 11-12; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub.3159 at 7-8.

13

review went to the commercial home market. The proportion of shipments exported to the United Statesranged from *** percent (in 2002) to *** percent (in 2003).65

The responding Indonesian producers of subject merchandise project that their capacity wouldincrease to *** pounds in 2004 and remain at this level in 2005 and 2006.66 These producers alsoprojected that their 2004 exports to the United States would exceed their 2003 exports by *** pounds, andtheir 2005 exports to the United States would exceed their 2004 exports by *** pounds.67

The pricing data indicate that subject imports from Indonesia had a mixed pattern of undersellingand overselling.68

The record thus indicates that subject imports from Indonesia are currently present in the U.S.market in appreciable quantities, that the capacity of subject producers in Indonesia will increase in 2004,the quantity of preserved mushrooms these producers plan to export to the United States will increase in2004 and 2005, and that there is some underselling by subject imports from Indonesia.69 Moreover, wefind that imports from all subject sources are at least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product,and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. In light of these factors, we do notfind that subject imports from Indonesia will have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industryif the order was revoked.70

C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

Below we examine the four factors the Commission customarily considers in determiningwhether there will be a likely reasonable overlap of competition. For our determinations on China andIndia, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from all sources andbetween these imports and the domestic like product if the orders were revoked. For our determination onChile, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from Chile and thedomestic like product and between subject imports from Chile and subject imports from China and India. For our determination on Indonesia, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition between subjectimports from Indonesia and the domestic like product and between subject imports from Indonesia andsubject imports from China and India.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that subject imports from all four subjectcountries were fungible with both the domestic like product and with each other. This finding relied onmarket participants’ reports that preserved mushrooms from the various sources were interchangeable. Italso relied on the fact that there were purchaser overlaps encompassing all subject country combinationsexcept Chile-Indonesia and India-Indonesia.71 The Commission found geographic overlap on the basisthat a majority of domestic producers and importers distributed product nationally, and that imports from

72 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 12; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at8. 73 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 14; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at9. 74 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 13-15; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub.3159 at 8-10. 75 CR/PR, Tables II-4-6. 76 CR/PR, Table II-3. 77 CR at II-3, PR at II-2.

14

each subject country were entered in numerous ports across the country.72 It also found simultaneouspresence in the market.73

With respect to channels of distribution, the Commission found that the domestically producedproduct participated significantly in all three channels (retail, industrial, and food service). With respectto the various subject country combinations, the Commission found a significant overlap between Chileand China and between Chile and India in the food service channel, and between China and India, Chinaand Indonesia, and India and Indonesia in the retail channel. The Commission did not find a reasonableoverlap of channels of distribution between subject imports from Chile and subject imports fromIndonesia, as the product from the former source was overwhelmingly concentrated in the industrial andfood service channels, and the product from the latter source was overwhelmingly concentrated in theretail channel. Moreover, the record did not indicate that any purchaser had purchased product from bothChile and Indonesia. As a result of this finding, the Commission cumulated imports from all subjectsources for its determinations on China and India. For its determination on Chile, it cumulated subjectimports from Chile, China, and India. For its determination on Indonesia, it cumulated subject importsfrom China, India, and Indonesia.74

Fungibility. As previously discussed, the Commission found this factor satisfied in the originalinvestigations. In these reviews, a majority of purchasers and U.S. producers reported that U.S.-produced preserved mushrooms were always interchangeable with imports from each of the subjectcountries. A majority of U.S. importers reported that U.S.-produced preserved mushrooms were alwaysor frequently interchangeable with imports from each of the subject countries. For each possible subjectcountry combination, a majority of each type of market participants reported that imports from differentsubject countries were always or frequently interchangeable.75

Purchasers were asked in these reviews to compare preserved mushrooms from different sourceson 22 factors, three of which (pertaining to discounts offered, extension of credit, and lowest price) areprice-related. There were no comparisons involving subject imports from Chile and no comparisons ofIndian product with Indonesian product. Of the 19 factors not related to price, a majority or plurality ofpurchasers reported that the domestically produced product was comparable with subject imports fromChina and with subject imports from Indonesia as to 18 factors, and was comparable with subject importsfrom India as to 16 factors. A majority or plurality of purchasers found subject imports from China andIndonesia comparable to each other in all 19 non-price factors, and subject imports from China and Indiacomparable to each other in 18 factors.76

Geographic Overlap. The Commission found this factor satisfied in the original investigations. During the period of review, six of seven responding U.S. producers and 11 of 18 responding importersreported selling their product nationwide.77

Channels of Distribution. As discussed above, in the original investigations the Commissionfound that channels of distribution did not overlap for subject imports from Chile and Indonesia, but didfor all other possible subject country combinations.

78 CR/PR, Table F-1. 79 CR/PR, Table F-1. 80 CR/PR, Table F-1. 81 CR/PR, Table F-1. 82 CR/PR, Table E-1. 83 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 84 The information available does not indicate that subject imports from China, India, or Indonesia were absentduring the period of review from any channel of distribution in which they were present during the original period ofinvestigation. Inasmuch as it corroborates the more comprehensive information compiled during the original

(continued...)

15

During the period of review, the record indicates that U.S. producers had a significant presence inall three channels of distribution. The annual share of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to the industrialchannel ranged from *** percent to *** percent, to the food service channel ranged from *** percent to*** percent, and to the retail channel ranged from *** percent to *** percent.78

Subject imports from Chile were not in the U.S. market during the period of review. The recordcontains some information concerning channels of distribution for imports from the other three subjectcountries during the period of review.

Information available indicates that distribution patterns of subject imports from China during theperiod of review varied enormously. In one year, *** shipments were distributed to the food servicechannel, in a second *** shipments were distributed to the retail channel. By contrast, there wereshipments to the industrial channel in only one year, which accounted for *** percent of total shipmentsin that year.79

There were also large annual fluctuations during the period of review for which data are availableconcerning the channels of distribution for subject imports from India. In one year, *** shipments weremade to food service users. During the other years, between *** and *** percent of shipments weremade to this channel, between *** and *** percent of shipments were made to industrial users, andbetween *** and *** percent of shipments were made to retail users.80

During each year of the period of review, subject imports from Indonesia were concentrated inthe retail channel. Between *** and *** percent of shipments went to this channel. Because ***shipments went to industrial users during the period of review, *** shipments were to food serviceusers.81 There were overlaps among purchasers of domestically-produced product and product fromChina, India, and Indonesia.82

Simultaneous Presence in Market. The Commission found this criterion satisfied in the originalinvestigation. Subject imports from Chile have not been present in the U.S. market in any year since1999; subject imports from the other three subject countries have been present during each year of theperiod of review.83

Conclusion. Information in the record indicates that subject imports from all subject sources arelikely to be fungible with each other and with the domestic like product, as was the case in the originalinvestigations. The record does not indicate any changes in geographic overlap since the originalinvestigations. Subject imports from all subject sources other than Chile have been present in the U.S.market throughout the period of review. In light of our prior conclusion that revocation of the order onsubject imports from Chile will cause these imports to increase their presence in the U.S. market to a levelthat would have a discernible adverse impact, we find that it is likely that subject imports from Chile willalso have the same continuous presence in the U.S. market, and nationwide distribution, as they didduring the original investigations.

The information available in the record concerning channels of distribution does not appear to usto be substantially different from the information in the original investigations.84 85 As in the original

84 (...continued)investigations, we believe our reference to the information available concerning channels of distribution for subjectimports during the period of review is appropriate, notwithstanding that these data cover only a low percentage ofsubject imports. 85 Commissioner Pearson does not join in this sentence. See Additional and Dissenting Views of CommissionerDaniel R. Pearson. 86 It is true, as the Coalition maintains, that not all of the Indonesian product sold in the retail channel ofdistribution is sold in sizes typically used by home consumers. During the period of review, between 3.3 and 13.7percent of annual imports from Indonesia were in cans above 255 grams (about nine ounces). CR/PR, Table F-2. The General Mills witness testified at the hearing that Indonesian products in this size include 68-ounce cans that aresold in the retail channel through “club” stores such as Costco, and that purchasers such as small restaurants maypurchase such products at such stores rather than from food service distributors. Tr. at 174 (Larson). Consequently,some Indonesian product sold through the retail channel of distribution will compete for the same customers withproduct from other sources sold through the food service channel of distribution. Nevertheless, this was also trueduring the original period of investigation and the Commission did not find this fact a sufficient basis to conclude inthe original determinations that subject imports from Indonesia had a substantial presence in the food service channelof distribution. See Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 8 n.39 (acknowledging that as much as25 percent of subject imports from Indonesia were 68-ounce cans sold in club stores). In these reviews, we see noreason to deviate from the analysis of the original investigations in this respect in assessing whether there is a likelyreasonable overlap of competition. 87 Coalition Posthearing Brief, ex. 2.

16

investigations, there is substantial presence by the domestically-produced product in all three channels ofdistribution. Subject imports from China and India have had, at various times during the period ofreview, significant presence in the retail and food service channels, as they did during the originalinvestigations. Subject imports from Indonesia were even more heavily concentrated in the retail channelduring the period of review than they were during the original investigations.86

The current record also has information similar to that in the original investigations concerningoverlap in purchasers. During the period of review, as in the original period of investigation, there wassome overlap in purchasers among U.S.-produced mushrooms, and subject imports from China, India, andIndonesia.

We have considered the information submitted by the Coalition indicating that the sole Chileanproducer of preserved mushrooms now produces four- and eight-ounce cans typically sold in the retailchannel of distribution, and markets such cans in the Mexican retail market.87 While the record indicatesthat the Chilean producer consequently has the theoretical ability to enter the U.S. retail channel ofdistribution, there is no information indicating that it has a U.S. retail distribution network in place, orthat it can readily establish such a network in light of its current lack of participation in the U.S. market,and its historic lack of participation in the retail channel. We therefore cannot find that it is likely thatsubject imports from Chile will enter the U.S. retail channel of distribution should the antidumping orderbe revoked. Instead, these imports will likely have a significant presence, as they did in the originalinvestigations, in the food service and industrial channels. Subject imports from China and India will alsolikely have a significant presence in the food service channel if the orders are revoked.

Consequently, the conclusions the Commission reached in the original investigations concerningreasonable overlap of competition are also applicable to the issue of likely overlap of competition in thesefive year reviews. Accordingly, with respect to subject imports from Chile, we find that there is a likelyoverlap of competition with the domestic like product and also with subject imports from China andIndia. With respect to subject imports from China and India, we find that there is a likely overlap ofcompetition between these imports and the domestic like product and among imports from all subjectsources. With respect to subject imports from Indonesia, we find that there is a likely overlap of

88 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Pearson do not join this section of the opinion. See Separate andConcurring Views of Chairman Koplan; Additional and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson. 89 CR/PR, Figure IV-2. 90 CR/PR, Table IV-3. 91 The Commission did not receive a questionnaire response from PT Zeta Agro. We note, however, that PT ZetaAgro’s annual exports during 1998-2001 were at least *** pounds, based on reported Customs data for 2000. CR/PR at IV-1 n.1. 92 CR/PR, Table IV-4. 93 See Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 10; CR/PR, Table IV-4. 94 See CR at IV-12 n.16, PR at IV-8 n.16. 95 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 96 While Chinese capacity is at least equal to the 501.8 million pounds of canned mushrooms it exported to allsources in 2002, and Indian capacity in 2003 was at least *** pounds, reported capacity in Indonesia in 2003 was

(continued...)

17

competition between these imports and the domestic like product and between these imports and subjectimports from China and India.

D. Other Considerations88

Our cumulation analysis in a five-year review encompasses more than an examination of whetherthere would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition of the products in the U.S. market. To aid us inour decision whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate, we examine the current and likely differencesin the conditions of competition. We find that there have been changes in certain conditions ofcompetition since the orders were imposed. Based on this analysis, we do not exercise our discretion tocumulate subject imports from Indonesia with those from China and India.

First, we observe that the Chinese and Indian industries appear to have grown significantly sincethe original period of investigation. Available public information indicates that Chinese exports ofcanned mushrooms to all sources increased by 50.0 percent from 1998 to 2002, suggesting that Chineseproductive capacity has increased significantly.89 Capacity of the Indian producers that responded to theCommission questionnaire *** during the period of review.90

By contrast, the capacity of subject Indonesian producers is considerably smaller. In part, thereduction in capacity is due to the revocation of the antidumping order with respect to a major producerand exporter, PT Zeta Agro, in February 2002.91 With respect to the producers that remain subject to theorder and that responded to the Commission questionnaire, their capacity declined by *** percent from1998 to 2003, to *** pounds.92 Although the subject Indonesian producers project to increase theircapacity in 2004, the projected increase will still not bring these producers’ capacity levels back to the1998 level.93 We note that in the original investigations reported capacity for the Indonesian industry in1997 was *** pounds.94

There are also differences between Indonesia, on the one hand, and China and India, on the otherhand, with respect to import patterns. While subject import volumes from China and India displayedlarge fluctuations during the period of review, subject import volume from Indonesia was relativelysteady. The significant change during the review period was a one-time occurrence that resulted from therevocation of the order on PT Zeta Agro. Otherwise, while under the discipline of the order, subjectimports from Indonesia had relatively steady volumes during the period of review.95

Differences in import patterns are likely to occur in the future given the changes in subjectproducers’ capacity since the original investigations.96 These disparities, combined with the Indonesian

96 (...continued)*** pounds. CR/PR, Figure IV-2, Tables IV-3-4. Even with the projected increases in Indonesian capacity, theindustry in Indonesia will remain significantly smaller than the industries in China or India.

We do not agree with the Coalition that the reported capacity data for Indonesia for 2003 significantlyunderstate actual capacity of subject producers. The 2003 U.S. exports for the five reporting Indonesian producersaccount for *** percent of total 2003 subject imports from Indonesia. Compare CR/PR, Table IV-4 with id., TableIV-1.

The Coalition contends that websites on the Internet disclose that there exist several Indonesian producersof preserved mushrooms that did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. However, these websites do notspecifically indicate that any of the firms in question produce preserved mushrooms. They merely identify firms thatexport canned mushrooms or other canned vegetables. See Coalition Posthearing Brief, ex. 1 at 10-11, exs. 13, 14. The Coalition also cites Customs Service data that identify firms other than the five Indonesian producers thatsubmitted data to the Commission as exporters of subject merchandise from Indonesia. Because the 2003 exportshipments by the five reporting Indonesian producers account for virtually all subject imports for that year, theexporters identified in the Customs data for which the Commission has not received questionnaire responses arelikely to be trading companies rather than producers of preserved mushrooms. 97 CR/PR, Table IV-1.

18

producers’ current focus on supplying the U.S. market, indicate that while the Indonesian industry has theability to significantly increase exports to the United States, it will not be able to increase exports by themagnitude that the Chinese or Indian industries actually increased exports during the period of review,nor will have the ability to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future. For example, subject imports fromChina increased by 27.5 million pounds between 2002 and 2003, and subject imports from Indiaincreased by 19.5 million pounds between 1998 and 1999.97 Even with projected increases in capacitylevels, the industry in Indonesia will likely lack the capability to increase subject imports by a similarmagnitude on an annual basis.

In light of differences in current and likely conditions of competition, we do not exercise ourdiscretion to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia with subject imports from China or India. Becausethere is no likely reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from Indonesia and subjectimports from Chile, we do not cumulate subject imports from Indonesia with those from any other subjectcountry.

The parties have not asserted that there is any difference in likely conditions of competitionamong subject imports from Chile, China, and India. Accordingly, we have exercised our discretion tocumulate imports from these three subject countries for purposes of our determinations on China, Chile,and India. For our determination on Indonesia, we consider subject Indonesian imports alone.

98 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). 99 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standardapplies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were nevercompleted.” Id. at 883. 100 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” itindicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressedshipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market inmaking its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” SAA at 884. 101 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ meansprobable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’sopinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on alikelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44(Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”). 102 Commissioner Hillman interprets the statute as setting out a standard of whether it is “more likely than not”that material injury would continue or recur upon revocation. She assumes that this is the type of meaning of“probable” that the Court intended when the Court concluded that “likely” means “probable.” See Separate Viewsof Vice Chairman Jennifer A. Hillman Regarding the Interpretation of the Term “Likely”, in Certain Carbon SteelProducts from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, theNetherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Views on Remand), Invs. Nos.AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3526 (July 2002) at 30-31. 103 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson refer to their dissenting views in Pressure Sensitive PlasticTape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 at 15-17 (June 2004). 104 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

19

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IFTHE ANTIDUMPING ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard In A Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke anantidumping order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and(2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping order “would be likely tolead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”98 The SAAstates that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; itmust decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the statusquo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects onvolumes and prices of imports.”99 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.100

The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset reviewprovisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-yearreviews.101 102 103

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or terminationmay not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”104 According to

105 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility ordifferentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domesticproducts, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id. 106 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current andlikely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length oftime it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, heconsiders all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response byforeign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifestthemselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” byreference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that mayoccur in predicting events into the more distant future. 107 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 108 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). In its fourth administrative review of the order on imports from China,encompassing a period of review from February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003, Commerce determined thatantidumping duties were absorbed by the foreign producer or exporter during the period of review for those sales forwhich Gerber Food Yunnan Co. was importer of record. 69 Fed. Reg. 54635, 54637 (Sept. 9, 2004).

The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required toconsider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. 109 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 110 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

20

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in antidumping investigations].”105 106

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an originalantidumping investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides thatthe Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subjectmerchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”107 Itdirects the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement inthe state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether theindustry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement isterminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1675(a)(4).108

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping orders arerevoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would besignificant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.109 Indoing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumeratedfactors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in theexporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than theUnited States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce otherproducts.110

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping orders are is revoked,the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subjectimports as compared to domestic like products and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

111 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in consideringthe likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely oncircumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAAat 886. 112 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 113 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider themagnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In its final results of expedited sunset reviews, Commercedetermined a likely dumping margin of 148.51 percent for all Chilean producer/exporters. It determined likelydumping margins for 11 named Chinese manufacturer/exporters ranging from 121.47 percent to 198.63 percent, anda China-wide rate of 198.63 percent. It determined likely dumping margins for four named Indianmanufacturer/exporters ranging from 6.28 percent to 243.87 percent, and an “all others” margin of 11.30 percent. For Indonesia, Commerce determined a likely dumping margin of 7.94 percent for PT Dieng Djaya/PR Sura JayaAbadi Perkasa, and an 11.26 percent margin for all other producers and exporters subject to the order. 69 Fed. Reg.11384, 11385-86 (March 10, 2004). 114 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. Whilethese factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that anindustry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at885. 115 Commissioner Pearson dissenting with respect to Indonesia. 116 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

21

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on theprice of domestic like products.111

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping orders arerevoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have abearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines inoutput, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2)likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, andinvestment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of theindustry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic likeproduct.112 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycleand the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.113 As instructed by the statute, wehave considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related tothe orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.114

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping orders onpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation orrecurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.115

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directsthe Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle andconditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”116 The following conditions ofcompetition in the preserved mushroom market are relevant to our determination.

117 CR/PR, Table I-5. 118 Tr. at 58-59 (Newhard). 119 CR at II-10, PR at II-7. 120 Original Chile Investigation, USITC Pub. 3144 at 16. 121 CR at II-1, PR at II-1. 122 Tr. at 21 (Kazemi). 123 CR at II-1, PR at II-1; Tr. at 21 (Kazemi). 124 CR at II-1, PR at II-1. 125 See CR at III-2, PR at III-1; Coalition Response to Notice of Institution at 19-20. 126 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 127 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 128 CR/PR, Table IV-1. For 2002, 47.5 million pounds of nonsubject imports were from nonsubject countries and

(continued...)

22

U.S. apparent consumption of preserved mushrooms fluctuated during the period of review,which encompasses calendar years 1998 through 2003. Apparent consumption ranged from a period lowof 173.2 million pounds in 2002 to a period high of 198.7 million pounds in 2000. The 187.9 millionpounds of U.S. apparent consumption in 2003 was higher than the 181.8 million pounds of U.S. apparentconsumption in 1998.117 A Coalition industry witness testified that although five to ten years agopreserved mushroom demand declined as several major pizza chains switched from preserved to freshmushrooms, demand in recent years has been consistent – neither growing strongly nor declining.118 Amajority of responding U.S. producers and importers each stated that they did not expect changes indemand in the future.119 The pattern in apparent consumption during the period of review contrasts withthat of the original period of investigation, in which U.S. apparent consumption fell from 232.1 millionpounds in 1995 to 196.2 million pounds in 1997.120

As was true in the original investigations, there are three major types of purchasers of preservedmushrooms, each of which is associated with a different channel of distribution. One channel ofdistribution concerns retail customers, which are mainly grocery stores or discount stores that also sellgroceries.121 Individual consumers who shop at retail outlets will typically purchase preservedmushrooms in four or eight-ounce cans or jars.122 The food service channel of distribution servescustomers such as restaurants and institutions such as schools or hospitals, which typically purchase 68-ounce cans.123 Industrial customers such as frozen-food manufacturers purchase large quantities ofpreserved mushrooms, typically in 68-ounce cans, that they use in producing further-processed foods.124

There have been several changes in the composition of the domestic industry since the originalinvestigations. One member of the original petitioning Coalition ceased operations, and the assets ofanother were sold to Creekside, a firm that is not a member of the current Coalition. Creekside beganproducing preserved mushrooms in 2003.125 *** ceased production of preserved mushrooms in 2000 andthereafter became a distributor of preserved mushrooms.126 Producer *** in 2003 permanently closed oneof its preserved mushroom production facilities.127

Imports not subject to the orders increased sharply immediately after imposition of theantidumping orders and subsequently declined. Nonsubject imports increased from 21.8 million poundsin 1998 to 45.7 million pounds in 1999 and then reached a period high of 65.1 million pounds in 2000. These imports then declined to 47.5 million pounds in 2001. In 2002 and 2003, nonsubject imports alsoincluded imports from Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro, with respect to which the antidumping orderwas revoked on February 1, 2002. The total quantity of nonsubject imports (including those from PTZeta Agro) was *** pounds in 2002 and then declined to *** pounds in 2003.128

128 (...continued)the remaining *** pounds were from PT Zeta Agro. For 2003, 42.8 million pounds of nonsubject imports were fromnonsubject countries, and the remaining *** were from PT Zeta Agro. Id.

The share of the quantity of U.S. apparent consumption represented by nonsubject imports rose from 12.0percent in 1998 to 25.3 percent in 1999 and then to a period high of 32.8 percent in 2000. In 2001 it declined to 27.1percent. In 2002, the first year imports from PT Zeta Agro became nonsubject, nonsubject import marketpenetration was *** percent. It then declined to *** percent in 2003. CR/PR, Table I-5.

The four largest sources of imports from nonsubject countries in 2003 were the Netherlands, Spain, Mexico,and Taiwan. Of these countries, only Spain showed a consistent volume trend during the period of review, rising inall but one annual comparison and peaking in 2003. By contrast, 2003 imports from the Netherlands were 56.1percent less than their peak volume of 2000; 2003 imports from Mexico were 33.9 percent less than their peakvolume of 1998; and 2003 imports from Taiwan were 59.3 percent below their peak volume of 2000. CR/PR, TableC-2. 129 Chairman Koplan joins this section of the opinion only insofar as it pertains to his determination on theantidumping order concerning subject imports from Chile. His determinations concerning China and India arecontained in the Separate and Concurring Views of Chairman Koplan. 130 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 17. 131 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 132 CR/PR, Table I-5. 133 INV-W-005, Table VII-1 (Jan. 20, 1999).

23

C. Determinations on Chile, China, and India129

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, andIndia for purposes of its determination on Chile. We refer to this determination in our examination of theoriginal investigations, because it involves the same group of imports that we are cumulating in thesereviews for purposes of our determinations on Chile, China, and India.

The quantity of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India declined irregularly from92.2 million pounds in 1995 to 86.5 million pounds in 1997. The quantity of cumulated subject importswas higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997. Cumulated subject import market penetration, measuredby quantity, increased irregularly from 39.7 percent in 1995 to 44.1 percent in 1997, and was higher ininterim 1998 than in interim 1997. The Commission found that, in light of their market penetrationlevels, both the volume and increase in market penetration of cumulated subject imports weresignificant.130

Cumulated subject import volume from Chile, China, and India declined from 67.1 millionpounds in 1998 to 32.3 million pounds in 1999 following imposition of the orders. Cumulated subjectimport volume from Chile, China, and India rose the next two years, and then declined from 2001 to2002. From 2002 to 2003 cumulated subject import volume from Chile, China, and India rose sharply. The 75.1 million pounds of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India in 2003 was greaterthan the 1998 quantity, notwithstanding the imposition of the orders.131 These imports had a 40.0 percentshare of U.S. apparent consumption in 2003.132

The increases in cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India observed during theperiod of review indicate that subject producers in these countries have the capability to increase theirexports to the United States. Other information in the record also supports this conclusion. The recordcompiled in the original investigations indicated that the Chilean producer had *** capacity utilization,and shipped *** proportion of its shipments to the home market.133 Notwithstanding that this producer isexport-oriented, public data indicate that Chilean exports of canned mushrooms to all sources were

134 CR/PR, Figure IV-1. As discussed in section III.B.1 above, the Chilean producer, which did not respond tothe Commission questionnaire, is still in operation. 135 Compare CR/PR, Figure IV-2 with id.,Table IV-2, and Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158,Table VII-2. 136 We note that domestic producer *** asserts that there are additional processors of preserved mushrooms inChina that could produce 200 to 600 million pounds of mushrooms annually for export to the United States uponrevocation of the order. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-5-6. 137 CR/PR, Tables IV-1, IV-3. 138 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, TableIV-3. 139 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, TableIV-3. 140 See Petitioners Posthearing Brief, ex. 17.

24

considerably lower during the period of review than they were prior to the issuance of the antidumpingorder.134 Thus, the information available suggests that the Chilean producer is likely to have at least theamount of unused capacity it had during the original investigations.

Public data indicate that China’s exports of canned mushrooms to all sources have increased since1999 notwithstanding the issuance of the order. The 501.8 million pounds of canned mushrooms Chineseproducers exported to all sources in 2002 far exceeds the maximum capacity of 183.8 million pounds thatChinese producers reported to the Commission during the original period of investigation. Indeed, theincrease in exports to all sources from 1999 to 2002 is by itself 160.8 million pounds.135 We infer fromthese data, as well as data from the original investigations indicating moderate to high capacity utilizationin China, that production capacity in China increased appreciably during the period of review. Currentcapacity in China is far greater than the capacity reported to the Commission during the originalinvestigations.136

Indian producers that responded to the Commission questionnaire reported that their capacityincreased throughout the period of review, rising from *** pounds in 1998 to *** pounds in 2003. Indianproducers’ reported unused capacity in 2003 was *** of the quantity of 2003 subject imports fromIndia.137

Several factors support a conclusion that subject producers in Chile, China, and India will likelyutilize their increased or unused capacity to direct significant quantity of additional exports to the UnitedStates should the antidumping duty orders be revoked. First, the subject producers are export-oriented. Producers in Chile and China did not direct a large percentage of their shipments to the home marketduring the original investigations (the most recent period for which data are available for these producers)and producers in India have not done so during the period of review.138 The United States is India’sprincipal export market, was Chile’s principal export market during the original period of investigation,and was a significant export market for China during the original period of investigation.139

The attractiveness of the U.S. market to exporters is also indicated by the numerous “new shipper”reviews instituted by Chinese exporters during the period of review,140 and the Chilean producers’attempts to transship product into the United States during the period of review that were described insection III.B.1 above.

An additional factor that makes the United States an attractive export market for producers in thesubject countries is the existence of barriers to importation to the subject merchandise in countries otherthan the United States. Exports of preserved mushrooms to the European Union have been subject to atariff-rate quota system since 1995. The EU system places an annual limit of 50.2 million pounds ofimports from China. This is far smaller than the total quantity of Chinese exports to all sources reported

141 CR at IV-5 n.5, PR at IV-4 n.5; see also CR/PR, Figure IV-2. 142 In our examination of likely import volume, we have also considered inventories of subject merchandise. Available data concerning inventories of subject merchandise in the United States indicate that they are notsubstantial. CR/PR, Table IV-2. 2003 inventories of subject merchandise in India were below the peak levelobserved during the period of review. CR/PR, Table IV-3. Additionally, most of the equipment used to producepreserved mushrooms cannot easily be converted to produce other products. CR at II-5, PR at II-4. While we do notrely on information concerning inventories or product shifting as a basis for our analysis of likely import volume, wefind that this information does not detract from our analysis. 143 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18-20. 144 CR/PR, Table II-2. 145 CR/PR, Table II-1. 146 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18.

25

in public data. The aggregate annual quota for imports from all sources other than China, Bulgaria, andRomania – which consequently would include Chile and India – is 7.3 million pounds.141

After declining immediately after imposition of the orders, the quantity of cumulated subjectimports from Chile, China, and India subsequently increased significantly. These imports are currentlypresent in the U.S. market in substantial quantities. Their market penetration is nearly as great as thatreached in 1997 and found to be significant in the original investigations. The subject producers fromChile, China, and India have both the ability and the inclination to further increase their exports to theUnited States significantly upon revocation of the antidumping orders. We consequently find that thelikely volume of cumulated subject imports would be significant in absolute terms if the orders wererevoked.142

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor inpurchasing decisions and that cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India were at leastmoderate substitutes with the domestic like product. It found there to be significant underselling by thesubject imports, with underselling occurring in 51 of 94 quarterly comparisons. It also noted that pricesgenerally declined during the period of investigation. The Commission found that prices declined at agreater rate than cost of goods sold, and concluded that the subject imports had significant price-depressing effects.143

The importance of price as a factor in purchasing decisions has not changed since the originalinvestigations. All 20 responding purchasers in these reviews indicated that “lowest price” was a “veryimportant” or “somewhat important” purchasing factor.144 Price was the factor purchasers named secondmost frequently (after quality) as the most important factor in selecting a supplier, and tied with quality asthe most frequently cited as the factor of second most importance.145 Consequently, we again find thatprice is an important factor in purchasing decisions for preserved mushrooms.

We also find, as we did in the original investigations, that the cumulated subject imports are atleast moderate substitutes with the domestic like product. We observed in the original investigations thatpurchasers did not perceive significant quality distinctions between the domestic like product and subjectimports from Chile, China, and India. The most recent information available on this issue concerningsubject imports from Chile continues to be that from the original investigations.146 The additionalinformation collected during these reviews indicates that all purchasers found subject imports from Indiaand the domestic like product comparable in three quality-related criteria. Majorities of purchasers found

147 CR/PR, Table II-3. 148 For the reasons provided in section IV.D.2. below, Vice Chairman Okun, Commissioner Miller, andCommissioner Hillman have not included in the pricing database information General Mills submitted concerningpricing products 1 and 3, but have included the data for product 2. As stated in his separate opinion, ChairmanKoplan has included the pricing database information General Mills submitted concerning products 1 and 2, but notproduct 3. As stated in his separate opinion, Commissioner Pearson considered the pricing data submitted byGeneral Mills, but did not rely on the data, and would have reached the same conclusion whether or not the GeneralMills data were included in the pricing database.

With the General Mills data for products 1 and 3 excluded, cumulated subject imports undersold thedomestic like product in *** of 107 quarterly comparisons during the period of review. If the General Mills data forproducts 1 and 2 are included, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** of 107 quarterlycomparisons. CR/PR, Table V-5. 149 CR/PR, Tables V-1-3.

26

subject imports from China and the domestic like product comparable in two of the quality-relatedcriteria, and a plurality found these products comparable in the remaining criterion.147

Even with the orders in place, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product inover 65 percent of quarterly comparisons.148 This is a higher frequency of underselling than that found tobe significant during the original investigations. Should the price discipline of the orders be removed, thefrequency of underselling will likely increase further. We find that if the orders are revoked, undersellingby the cumulated subject imports will likely be significant.

While cumulated subject import volume fell immediately after imposition of the orders, prices fortwo of the U.S.-produced products for which the Commission collected data increased, and the price forthe remaining product fluctuated in a narrow range. Cumulated subject import volume began again toincrease in 2000. Between the first quarter of 2000 and the final quarter of 2003, prices for all three U.S.-products declined.149 Consequently, the records of both the original investigations and these reviewsshow a relationship between increasing presence of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, andIndia in the U.S. market and price declines for the domestic like product. This is not surprising in light ofthe underlying conditions of competition. Given the substitutability of the products and the importance ofprice in purchasing decisions, domestic producers must compete on the basis of price with subject importsfrom Chile, China, and India. We have already concluded that revocation of the orders will likely lead toincreasing volumes of cumulated subject imports offered at prices that are frequently below those for thedomestic like product. In such circumstances, particularly when demand is anticipated to be stable,domestic producers will be forced either to respond to the imports’ prices or to lose market share. Thus,additional quantities of cumulated subject imports will likely contribute materially to a continuation of thedeclines in prices for the domestic like product observed during the original investigations and the latterportion of the period of review. We consequently find that revocation of the orders will likely havesignificant price-depressing effects for the domestic like product.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports fromChile, China, and India gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry. There were declinesin the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment. The combinationof declining output and falling prices led to deterioration in the domestic industry’s operatingperformance. Operating margins declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997, the

150 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 21-24. 151 CR/PR, Tables III-1, III-2, III-6. 152 Tr. at 15 (Shelton), 25 (Newhard). 153 CR/PR, Table III-1. 154 CR/PR, Table III-2. Inventories fluctuated, showing large annual variations. CR/PR, Table III-3. 155 CR/PR, Table I-5. 156 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 157 CR/PR, Table III-1. See also CR/PR at III-1 n.2 (describing possible producer-specific reasons for lowcapacity utilization). 158 CR/PR, Table III-5. 159 CR/PR, Table III-6.

27

operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent and at least half of the domestic producers sustainedoperating losses.150

When cumulated subject imports declined, and prices and net sales values increased, immediatelyafter imposition of the orders in 1999, the domestic industry showed modest improvements in severalindicators of performance, including production, shipments, and operating income.151 Some industrywitnesses testified that they perceived improvements in operations immediately after imposition of theorders.152 During the latter portion of the period of review, however, cumulated subject import volumeincreased, prices and unit sales values declined, and the industry’s condition deteriorated.

In light of serious deterioration in several industry indicators since 2000, we find the industry’scurrent condition to be vulnerable. Production, whose peak level during the period of review in 2000 was68.9 million pounds, declined to a period low of 50.2 million pounds in 2003.153 U.S. shipments likewisedeclined from a period peak of 73.5 million pounds in 1999 to a period low of 47.7 million pounds in2003.154 The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined irregularly from its periodpeak of 40.7 percent in 1999, reaching a period low of 25.4 percent in 2003.155

Two firms closed production facilities after 2000.156 This caused capacity to decline after 2000. Nevertheless, capacity utilization was only 25.1 percent (a period peak) in 2003.157 Employment declinedirregularly.158

The domestic industry’s last profitable year was 2000, when it had a positive operating margin of3.2 percent. In 2003, the industry had an operating margin of negative 2.7 percent and three of sixproducers reported operating losses.159

For the reasons discussed above, should the orders be revoked, cumulated subject import volumefrom Chile, China, and India will likely increase significantly. These subject imports will likely undersellthe domestic like product at increasing frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressingeffects. In light of their likely volume and price effects upon revocation of the antidumping duty orders,cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, and India will likely exacerbate the declines in domesticindustry output, employment, and market share observed during the latter portion of the period of review. They will also likely cause the domestic industry’s already unprofitable financial performance todeteriorate further. We consequently find that revoking the antidumping duty orders on preservedmushrooms from Chile, China, and India will likely have a significant adverse effect on the domesticindustry.

160 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Pearson do not join the remainder of this opinion. See Separate andConcurring Views of Chairman Koplan; Additional and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson. 161 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159, Table IV-1. 162 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 17-18. 163 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 164 CR/PR, Table I-5. 165 Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 10. 166 CR at IV-14-16, PR at IV-9-10; Compare Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 10 with CR/PR, TableIV-4. 167 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8 n.20.

28

D. Determination on Indonesia160

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

During the original period of investigation, the quantity of subject imports from Indonesiadeclined from 30.8 million pounds in 1995 to 26.9 million pounds in 1996, increased to 31.8 millionpounds in 1997, and was lower in interim 1998 than in interim 1997. U.S. market penetration for theseimports increased from 12.8 percent in 1995 to 15.5 percent in 1997.161 The Commission’s originaldetermination on Indonesia found subject import volume to be significant, based on a cumulated analysisof subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.162

The quantity of subject imports from Indonesia fluctuated within a fairly narrow range from 1998through 2001. During this period, quantities ranged between 22.4 million pounds (in 2001) and 29.1million pounds (in 1999). The 1999 quantity, while above that for the preceding year, was still below thequantities during two of the three full years of the original period of investigation. The revocation of theorder with respect to Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro effective February 1, 2002 caused subject importvolume to decline appreciably. Subject import volume declined to *** pounds in 2002 and then to ***pounds in 2003.163 In 2003, subject imports from Indonesia accounted for *** percent of U.S. apparentconsumption.164

As discussed earlier, capacity of subject producers in Indonesia declined during the period ofreview. Questionnaire data indicate that two Indonesian producers, ***, will increase their capacity by*** pounds between 2003 and 2004, and that these producers’ capacity will remain at the 2004 level in2005 and 2006.165 Even assuming arguendo that the two Indonesian producers, PT Dieng and PT Indo,which suspended production of preserved mushrooms in 2003, will not produce mushrooms, and willhave zero capacity in 2004, the capacity increases projected by *** will still result in a *** poundcapacity increase for subject Indonesian producers from 2003 to 2004.166

The Indonesian producers themselves acknowledge that some of this increased capacity will beused to increase export shipments to the United States. They project that their exports will increase by*** pounds from 2003 to 2004, and by another *** pounds from 2004 to 2005.167

Consequently, the Indonesian producers’ own projections anticipate that subject imports fromIndonesia in 2004 and 2005 will be significantly above 2003 levels. We have concluded, however, thatthe Indonesian producers’ projections of increases in their exports to the United States are overlyconservative for purposes of projecting what will likely happen upon revocation of the antidumpingorder. The projections assume that only *** percent of the increase in these two producers’ capacity will

168 See Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 9-10. 169 CR/PR, Table IV-4. 170 *** Foreign Producers Questionnaire, ex. 1; *** Foreign Producers Questionnaire, ex. 1. 171 Tr. at 186 (Morgan). Additionally, as explained in section IV.C.1. above, there are barriers to entry in theEuropean Union to Indonesian exports of preserved mushrooms. 172 CR/PR, Table IV-4. 173 See Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire Responses. 174 See *** and *** Foreign Producer Questionnaire Responses. 175 In our examination of likely import volume, we have also considered inventories of subject merchandise fromIndonesia. Available data indicate that inventories in the United States are not substantial and inventories inIndonesia have been stable during the period of review. CR/PR, Tables IV-2, IV-4. Additionally, most of theequipment used to produce preserved mushrooms cannot easily be converted to produce other products. CR at II-5,PR at II-4. While we do not rely on information concerning inventories or product shifting as a basis for ouranalysis of likely import volume, we find that this information also does not detract from our analysis.

29

be devoted to increasing export shipments to the United States in 2004 and only *** percent of thecapacity increase will be devoted to increasing export shipments to the United States in 2005.168

These percentages seem to us unduly low in light of other information in the record concerningthe Indonesian industry. First, the United States is by far the principal market for Indonesian subjectproducers. In 2003, *** percent of the subject Indonesian producers’ shipments were exported to theUnited States.169 This percentage was *** – *** percent in 2003 – for the two producers that intend toexpand capacity.170 Counsel for Indonesian Respondents acknowledged at the hearing that “I think it’ssafe to say from the data that the U.S. market is certainly the place where the Indonesians are selling theproduct.”171 Second, subject Indonesian producers operate at fairly high capacity utilization. In 2003,capacity utilization for the reporting Indonesian producers was *** percent.172 If data on the twoproducers that suspended production of preserved mushrooms in 2003 are excluded, capacity utilizationfor the remaining producers increases to *** percent.173 It is noteworthy that *** and *** had ***capacity utilization in 2003 notwithstanding that they began operations in 2002.174 In light of their current*** capacity utilization, their additional capacity will be used to increase production. The firms’ historyindicate that this additional capacity is likely promptly to be utilized at a *** level. It further indicatesthat the overwhelming percentage of additional production is likely to be directed to increasing exports tothe United States. We therefore find that the projected increases in Indonesian capacity will likely resultin an even greater increase in exports to the United States than that projected by the Indonesianproducers.175

We consequently find that, should the antidumping order be revoked, subject import volume fromIndonesia will increase substantially over current levels. The likely volume after revocation will besignificant in absolute terms. In this respect, we reference our prior finding, made in section IV.C.3above, that the domestic industry is in a vulnerable condition. In light of its vulnerability, relativelymodest additional amounts of LTFV imports will likely have adverse effects on the domestic industry.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In its original determination on Indonesia, the Commission found significant underselling andsignificant price-depressing effects by imports based on a cumulated analysis of subject imports from

176 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 18-19. 177 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at V-14. 178 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 18. 179 CR/PR, Table II-3. 180 CR/PR, Tables I-3, IV-1; Tr. at 152 (Larson) 181 Tr. at 152 (Larson). 182 For example, while General Mills emphasizes that it concentrates its business on whole or sliced “fancy”product, Tr. at 148 (Larson), the record indicates that there are appreciable volumes of canned stems and piecesimported from Indonesia. See CR/PR, Tables V-1-2. Additionally, while General Mills testified that its sales of“fancy” product have declined continuously during the period of review, Tr. at 177 (Larson), there have not beencontinuous declines in the quantities of subject imports from Indonesia. See CR/PR, Table IV-1. 183 The Coalition has not objected to the prices General Mills reported for pricing product 2. See CoalitionPosthearing Brief, ex. 2 at 39. We have included information General Mills furnished for pricing product 2 in ourpricing database in light of the lack of any objections to its use. 184 CR at V-5, PR at V-4. 185 See CR at V-6, PR at V-5.

30

China, India, and Indonesia.176 In the original investigations, subject imports from Indonesia undersoldthe domestic like product in 16 of 42 quarterly comparisons.177

We incorporate by reference our discussion in section IV.C.2. above that price is an importantfactor in purchasing decisions for preserved mushrooms.

We find, as we did in the original investigations, that subject imports from Indonesia are at leastmoderate substitutes with the domestic like product. We observed in the original investigations that amajority of purchasers found the domestic like product and subject imports from Indonesia to becomparable in quality.178 The additional information collected during these reviews indicates thatmajorities of purchasers found subject imports from Indonesia and the domestic like product comparablein two of three quality-related criteria, and a plurality found these products comparable in the remainingcriterion.179

Before we analyze the pricing data collected in these reviews, we must first resolve a disputebetween the parties concerning the reliability and comparability of some of the pricing data submitted byimporter General Mills. General Mills was the *** importer of subject merchandise from Indonesia tosubmit a questionnaire response. Nevertheless, *** percent of subject imports from Indonesia in 2003were imported by firms other than General Mills.180 In light of this, we believe that many of respondents’efforts to depict General Mills’ experiences as representative of those of purchasers of Indonesianproduct, typified by the statement of General Mills’ witness that “[t]here aren’t any other major playersthat are in Indonesia other than Green Giant,”181 which is a brand name General Mills uses for itspreserved mushroom products, are overstated, even if not technically incorrect.182

Respondents have stated that the pricing data that General Mills furnished can and should be usedfor the Commission’s underselling analysis. The Coalition contends that some pricing data General Millshas submitted should not be used.183

We have decided not to use for purposes of our underselling analysis the pricing data GeneralMills submitted for pricing products 1 and 3. Pricing product 1 is four-ounce cans of stems and pieces,excluding stems and pieces packed in butter and butter sauce.184 In reporting its prices, General Millsused constructed rather than actual prices. It estimated the prices it charged by ***. Using this estimationmethod, General Mills reported its price for product 1 was a constant ***.185 Although the fact GeneralMills estimated prices is not in itself objectionable, we do not believe that General Mills took sufficientsteps to ensure the prices it reported were a reliable estimate of the prices it charged to customers. Both

186 We observe that, even after exclusion of the General Mills pricing data, the usable pricing data cover ***percent of subject imports from Indonesia.

Indonesian Respondents assert that the Commission should have verified the prices General Mills reportedfor product 1 if it believed these prices were unreliable. See Indonesian Respondents Final Comments at 3-4. Indonesian Respondents overlook that General Mills provided to the Commission staff several iterations of untimelyand admittedly erroneous pricing data. See Tr. at 152-53 (Larson) (acknowledgment that original pricing dataprovided by General Mills was not accurate). General Mills did not make its final submission of pricing data –containing its third version of the data– until September 15, 2004. It did not fully explain the basis for this data untilSeptember 22, 2004 – which was after the date posthearing briefs were filed and over two months after the initialdue date for the questionnaires. See Memorandum to File from Amelia Preece (Sept. 22, 2004). Under the statute,the Commission is only required to provide parties with the opportunity to remedy defective submissions “in light ofthe time limits established for the completion of investigations or reviews.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). Because ofGeneral Mills’ delay in providing and explaining the pricing data to the Commission, there was insufficient timebefore the due date for the final staff report for Commission staff to attempt verification of the General Mills data. 187 CR at V-7, PR at V-5. 188 Glass jars cost more to produce than cans, and product packaged in glass jars will receive a price premiumbecause it is more visually appealing. CR at V-7, PR at V-5-6. Additionally, a 4.5-ounce container will hold moreproduct than will a four-ounce container. 189 CR/PR, Table V-5. 190 Available data concerning PT Zeta Agro support this contention, notwithstanding respondents’ contrarycontentions. The record pricing information that satisfies our standards of reliability and comparability indicatesthat, following revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to PT Zeta Agro, imports from PT Zeta Agroundersold domestically produced product in *** quarterly comparisons. CR/PR, Table G-2; ImportersQuestionnaires. (Data compiled in Table G-1 were not used for this analysis, because they include General Millsdata for product 1.)

31

the lack of variation in prices reported by General Mills and the price levels themselves call into questionwhether the prices it reported for product 1 are comparable to the prices reported by domestic producersand other importers. In light of this lack of comparability, we do not believe that the pricing data reportedby General Mills for product 1 provide an accurate basis for an underselling analysis, in which theconstant General Mills price would be compared with fluctuating prices of other market participants. Weconsequently do not use these data in our underselling analysis.186

Pricing product 3 encompasses four-ounce cans of sliced mushrooms, excluding slicedmushrooms packed in butter or butter sauce. The pricing data General Mills reported were for 4.5-ounceglass jars of sliced mushrooms.187 There are clear non-product differences in size and packaging betweena four-ounce can and a 4.5-ounce glass jar that make the two products inappropriate for purposes of head-to-head price comparisons.188 Consequently, we have not used the General Mills data for product 3 in ourunderselling analysis.

Based on the pricing data that satisfy our standards of reliability and comparability, subjectimports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product in 36 of 72 quarterly comparisons.189 Thus,notwithstanding the orders, subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product morefrequently during the period of review than they did during the original period of investigation. Shouldthe price discipline of the orders be removed, the frequency of underselling will likely increase further.190 We find that if the orders are revoked, underselling by the subject imports will likely be significant.

Given the substitutability of the products, and the importance of price in purchasing decisions,domestic producers must compete on the basis of price with subject imports from Indonesia. We havealready concluded that revocation of the order will likely lead to increasing volumes of subject importsfrom Indonesia and that these imports will be offered at prices that are frequently below those for thedomestic like product. In such circumstances, particularly when demand is anticipated to be stable,domestic producers will be forced either to respond to the imports’ prices or to lose market share. Thus,

191 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 14; CR/PR, Tables V-1-3. It is not necessary for us tofind that the subject imports from Indonesia were a cause of the price declines experienced by the domestic industryduring the latter portion of the period of review. Instead, our analysis in a five-year review concerns the likely priceeffects should the order under review be revoked. We find that, should the order on Indonesia be revoked, thevolume of subject imports will be sufficiently significant, and their frequency of underselling sufficient, that theywill by themselves contribute in a material way to further price depression. There is no legal requirement that wefind the subject imports to be the sole, or principal, cause of price depression. 192 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 20-21. 193 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(C). 194 Indonesian Respondents’ repeated arguments that there was no causal relationship during the period of reviewbetween subject import volumes from Indonesia and the condition of the domestic industry are irrelevant. TheCommission is not obliged to determine whether imports are injuring the domestic industry while subject to anantidumping order. To the contrary, the statute contemplates that the industry’s condition may improve while theorder is still in place, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(B), and the SAA states that such improvement, by itself, should notpreclude the Commission from making an affirmative determination in a five-year review. SAA at 884. Instead, theCommission’s focus is on the likely effects of subject imports on the domestic industry in the reasonably foreseeablefuture should the antidumping order(s) under review be revoked. 195 SAA at 885. Nor does the SAA or any other authority require the Commission to distinguish between theeffects of different sets of subject imports when it engages in a non-cumulated analysis. Whatever obligation theCommission has to discuss the effects of alternative causes of injury is limited to causes other than subject imports. It is consequently not surprising that Indonesian Respondents cite no authority whatsoever for their argument that, ina non-cumulated analysis, the Commission should consider subject imports from sources other than Indonesia to bealternative causes of injury. See Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 14. Instead, in a non-cumulatedanalysis, it is sufficient for the Commission to determine that each set of subject imports it is separately analyzing is

(continued...)

32

significant additional quantities of subject imports from Indonesia will likely contribute materially to acontinuation of the declines in prices for the domestic like product observed during the originalinvestigations and the latter portion of the period of review.191 We consequently find that revocation ofthe order will likely have significant price-depressing effects for the domestic like product.


In its original determination concerning Indonesia, the Commission found that the cumulatedsubject imports from China, India, and Indonesia gained market share at the expense of the domesticindustry. There were declines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, andemployment. The combination of declining output and falling prices led to a deterioration in the domesticindustry’s operating performance. Operating margins declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997, the operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent and at least half of the domestic producerssustained operating losses.192

We incorporate by reference our finding in section III.C.3 above that the domestic industry iscurrently in a vulnerable condition and our discussion of the data concerning the deterioration in thedomestic industry’s performance during the latter portion of the period of review underlying that finding.We observe that the statute states that the Commission is to consider “whether the industry is vulnerableto material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated.”193 The statute doesnot, as Indonesian Respondents argue, require that the domestic industry be vulnerable because of theeffects of the particular set of subject imports it is analyzing.194 To the contrary, the SAA acknowledgesthat while factors other than subject imports may be responsible for the weakened state of the industry,the Commission should still consider whether the industry will deteriorate further upon revocation of anorder.195

195 (...continued)an independent likely cause of material injury to the domestic industry. We have made such a showing with respectto subject imports from Indonesia.

33

For the reasons discussed above, should the order be revoked, subject import volume fromIndonesia will likely increase significantly. These subject imports will likely undersell the domestic likeproduct with increasing frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressing effects. In light oftheir likely volume and price effects, upon revocation of the antidumping duty order subject imports fromIndonesia will likely exacerbate the declines in domestic industry output, employment, and market shareobserved during the latter portion of the period of review. They will also likely cause the domesticindustry’s already unprofitable financial performance to deteriorate further. We consequently find thatrevoking the antidumping duty order on preserved mushrooms from Indonesia will likely have asignificant adverse effect on the domestic industry.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders onpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to a continuation orrecurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States in a reasonably foreseeable time.

1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2). 2 CR at IV-12, IV-14, PR at IV-8. 3 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

35

Separate and Concurring Views of Chairman Koplan

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding ina five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidywould be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonablyforeseeable time.1 Based on the record in these five-year reviews, I determine that material injury islikely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders on subject imports of certainpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia are revoked.

In these reviews, I have determined to cumulate imports from all subject sources for mydeterminations on China and India. For my determination on Chile, I have cumulated subject importsfrom Chile, China, and India. For my determination on Indonesia, I have cumulated subject imports fromChina, India, and Indonesia. I have done so because: (1) I have not found that subject imports from eachof the four subject countries would have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) Ihave found that there is a likely reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports and betweenthe subject imports and the domestic like product for all possible subject country combinations exceptChile and Indonesia; and (3) I have chosen to exercise my discretion to cumulate all subject importseligible to be cumulated based on my findings on no discernible adverse impact and likely reasonableoverlap of competition.

I join in the discussion regarding domestic like product and domestic industry. I also join in thedetermination of the majority on cumulation with respect to the issues of no discernible adverse impactand reasonable likelihood of competition. I further join in the views of the majority on conditions ofcompetition. I also join the determination of the majority concerning the fungibility of subject importswith each other and the domestic like product, and the simultaneous presence in the same geographicmarkets. I write separately to provide my reasons for exercising my discretion to cumulate all subjectimports eligible to be cumulated based on my findings on no discernible adverse impact and likelyreasonable overlap of competition. I also explain why I have determined that revocation of theantidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia is likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonablyforeseeable time.

I. Cumulation

I have considered carefully respondents’ arguments that I should exercise my discretion not tocumulate subject imports from Indonesia with imports from any other subject country. As explainedabove, I have joined the majority’s finding that subject imports from Indonesia may not be cumulatedwith subject imports from Chile because of the lack of a likely reasonable overlap of competition. Withrespect to the remaining subject countries, notwithstanding respondents’ arguments concerning disparatetrends in volume and capacity, I find that producers of subject merchandise in Indonesia, like those inChina and India, have both the capability and inclination to increase exports to the United Statessignificantly upon revocation of an order. Indeed, the Indonesian subject producers themselves reportthat their capacity will increase after 2003 and that they will increase their exports to the United States asa result.2 Moreover, the United States is Indonesia’s principal export market.3 The purported disparitiesin average unit values (AUVs) identified by respondents appears to be principally a result of subject

4 CR/PR, Table IV-1. Respondents’ contentions concerning General Mills focus on importing “fancy” whole orsliced mushroom products, which they assert are less likely to compete on price than other types of mushrooms,appear to be overstated. *** subject imports from Indonesia in 2003 were ***. See CR/PR, Tables I-3, IV-1. Therecord indicates that there are appreciable volumes of canned stems and pieces imported from Indonesia. SeeCR/PR, Tables V-1-2. 5 CR/PR, Table I-1. 6 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 12-13.

36

imports from Indonesia being more heavily concentrated in the retail channel of distribution than theimports from other subject countries. The trends in AUVs for subject imports from Indonesia do notappear to differ significantly from those for subject imports overall.4 In light of these findings and myother findings concerning product fungibility and substitutability and the importance of price inpurchasing decisions, I conclude that it is not likely that there will be any significant differences in thelikely conditions of competition between subject imports from Indonesia, on the one hand, and subjectimports from China and India, on the other.

I have therefore exercised my discretion to cumulate all subject imports eligible to be cumulatedbased on my findings on no discernible adverse impact and likely reasonable overlap of competition. Formy determination on Chile, I cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, and India. For mydeterminations on China and India, I cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.For my determination on Indonesia, I cumulate subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.

II. Determination on Chile

For my determination on Chile, I cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, and India. This isthe same group of subject imports that the majority has cumulated for its determinations on Chile, China,and India. I join that portion of the Commission’s opinion with respect to my determination on Chile.

III. Determinations on China and India

For my determinations on China and India, I cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, India,and Indonesia.

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

The quantity of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia declined from123.0 million pounds in 1995 to 111.1 million pounds in 1996, and then increased to 118.3 millionpounds in 1997. The quantity of cumulated subject imports was higher in interim 1998 than in interim1997. Cumulated subject import market penetration, measured by quantity, declined from 51.2 percent in1995 to 51.1 percent in 1996, and increased to 57.9 percent in 1997.5 Market penetration was higher ininterim 1998 than in interim 1997. The Commission found that, in light of their market penetrationlevels, both the volume and increase in market penetration of cumulated subject imports were significant.6

Cumulated subject import volume from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia declined from 93.8million pounds in 1998 to 61.4 million pounds in 1999 following imposition of the orders. Cumulatedsubject import volume from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia rose to 71.8 million pounds in 2000 andthen declined slightly to 71.3 million pounds in 2001. Cumulated subject import volume declined to ***pounds in 2002, the year that the order was revoked with respect to Indonesian producer PT Zeta Agro. From 2002 to 2003, however, cumulated subject import volume from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

7 CR/PR, Table IV-1. 8 CR/PR, Table I-5. 9 INV-W-005, Table VII-1 (Jan. 20, 1999). 10 CR/PR, Figure IV-1. 11 Compare CR/PR, Figure IV-2 with id.,Table IV-2, and Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158,Table VII-2. 12 I note that domestic producer *** asserts that there are additional processors of preserved mushrooms in Chinathat could produce 200 to 600 million pounds of mushrooms annually for export to the United States uponrevocation of the order. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-5-6. 13 CR/PR, Tables IV-1, IV-3. 14 CR, pages IV-15 and 16, PR, pages IV-9-10. 15 CR, page IV-14, PR, page IV-8. 16 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, Table IV-3.

37

rose *** to *** million pounds.7 These imports had a ***-percent share of U.S. apparent consumption in2003.8

The record indicates that producers of subject merchandise from Chile, China, India, andIndonesia have the capability to increase their exports to the United States. The record compiled in theoriginal investigations indicated that the Chilean producer had *** capacity utilization, and shipped ***of its shipments to the home market.9 Notwithstanding that this producer is export-oriented, public dataindicate that Chilean exports of canned mushrooms to all sources were considerably lower during theperiod of review than they were prior to the issuance of the antidumping order.10 Thus, the informationavailable suggests that the Chilean producer is likely to have at least the amount of unused capacity it hadduring the original investigations.

Public data indicate that China’s exports of canned mushrooms to all sources have increased since1999 notwithstanding the issuance of the order. The 501.8 million pounds of canned mushrooms Chineseproducers exported to all sources in 2002 far exceeds the maximum capacity of 183.8 million pounds thatChinese producers reported to the Commission during the original period of investigation. Indeed, theincrease in exports to all sources from 1999 to 2002 is by itself 160.7 million pounds.11 I infer from thesedata, as well as data from the original investigations that indicated moderate to high capacity utilization inChina, that production capacity in China increased appreciably during the period of review. Clearly,current capacity in China is far greater than the capacity reported to the Commission during the originalinvestigations.12

Indian producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire reported that their capacityincreased throughout the period of review, rising from *** pounds in 1998 to *** pounds in 2003. Indianproducers’ reported unused capacity in 2003 was *** of the quantity of subject imports from India in thatyear.13

Indonesian producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, and that remain subjectto the orders, reported that capacity declined from *** million pounds in 1998 to *** million pounds in2003, as ***. However, the *** producers in Indonesia reported that their capacity to produce the subjectproduct increased in 2004,14 and projected an increase to *** million pounds in 2005 and 2006.15

Several factors support a conclusion that should the antidumping duty orders be revoked, subjectproducers in Chile, China, India, and Indonesia will likely utilize their increased or unused capacity todirect a significant quantity of additional exports to the United States. First, the subject producers areexport-oriented. Producers in Chile and China did not direct *** their shipments to the home marketduring the original investigations (the most recent period for which data are available for these producers)and producers in India and Indonesia have not done so during the period of review.16 The United States is

17 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, Table IV-3. 18 See Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, ex. 17. 19 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8. 20 CR at IV-5 n.5, PR at IV-4; see also CR/PR, Figure IV-2. 21 CR/PR, Table I-5. 22 In my examination of likely import volume, I have also considered inventories of subject merchandise. Available data concerning inventories of subject merchandise in the United States indicate that they are notsubstantial. CR/PR, Table IV-2. In 2003, inventories of subject merchandise in India were *** the peak levelobserved during the period of review. CR/PR, Table IV-3. Inventories in Indonesia have been stable during theperiod of review. CR/PR, Table IV-4. Additionally, most of the equipment used to produce preserved mushroomscannot easily be converted to produce other products. CR at II-5, PR at II-4. While I do not rely on informationconcerning inventories or product shifting as a basis for my analysis of likely import volume, I find that thisinformation does not detract from my analysis.

38

the principal export market for producers in India and Indonesia, was Chile’s principal export marketduring the original period of investigation, and was a significant export market for China during theoriginal period of investigation.17 The attractiveness of the U.S. market to exporters is also indicated bythe numerous “new shipper” reviews instituted by Chinese exporters during the period of review,18 andthe Chilean producers’ attempts to transship product into the United States during the period of reviewthat were described in the Commission’s opinion. Moreover, the subject Indonesian producersthemselves project that their exports to the United States will increase by *** pounds from 2003 to 2004,and by another *** pounds from 2004 to 2005.19

An additional factor that makes the United States an attractive export market for producers in thesubject countries is the existence of barriers to importation of the subject merchandise in countries otherthan the United States. Exports of preserved mushrooms to the European Union have been subject to atariff-rate quota system since 1995. The EU system places an annual limit of 50.2 million pounds onimports from China. This is far smaller than the total quantity of Chinese exports to all sources reportedin public data. The aggregate annual quota for imports from all sources other than China, Bulgaria, andRomania – which consequently would include Chile, India, and Indonesia – is 7.3 million pounds.20

After declining immediately after imposition of the orders, the quantity of cumulated subjectimports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia subsequently increased, with a particularly sharp increaseoccurring between 2002 and 2003. These imports are currently present in the U.S. market in substantialquantities. The subject producers from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia have both the ability and theinclination to increase their exports to the United States significantly if the antidumping orders arerevoked. The record indicates that these producers have the ability to increase exports to the United Statesrapidly – indeed, the market penetration of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India, andIndonesia increased by *** percentage points in the single year between 2002 and 2003, notwithstandingthat U.S. apparent consumption rose during this year.21 Consequently, I find that the likely volume ofcumulated subject imports would be significant in absolute terms.22

B. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor inpurchasing decisions and that cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia were atleast moderate substitutes for the domestic like product. It found there to be significant underselling bythe subject imports, with underselling occurring in 67 of 136 quarterly comparisons, overselling occurringin 67 quarterly comparisons, and the products being priced the same in the remaining two comparisons. It also noted that prices generally declined during the period of investigation. The Commission found that

23 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 14-15. 24 CR/PR, Table II-2. 25 CR/PR, Table II-1. 26 CR/PR, Table II-3. 27 The instances of underselling were 51.9 percent in 1999, 50.0 percent in 2000, 42.4 percent in 2001, 60.6percent in 2002, and 71.9 percent in 2003. CR/PR, Table V-5. 28 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 14; CR/PR, Tables IV-1-3. Between the first quarterof 1999, when the orders were first announced and the final quarter of 2003, prices for all three U.S. productsdeclined. Prices for product 2, the 68-ounce can, declined *** percent, and prices for products 1 and 3 declined ***percent and *** percent, respectively. CR/PR, Tables V-1-3.

39

prices declined at a greater rate than cost of goods sold, and concluded that the subject imports hadsignificant price-depressing effects.23

The importance of price as a factor in purchasing decisions has not changed since the originalinvestigations. All 20 responding purchasers in these reviews indicated that “lowest price” was a “veryimportant” or “somewhat important” purchasing factor.24 Price was the factor purchasers named secondmost frequently (after quality) as the most important factor in selecting a supplier, and was tied withquality as the most frequently cited factor of second most importance.25 Consequently, I again find thatprice is an important factor in purchasing decisions for preserved mushrooms.

I also find, as the Commission did in the original investigations, that the cumulated subjectimports are at least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product. The Commission observed in theoriginal investigations that purchasers did not perceive significant quality distinctions between thedomestic like product and subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia. The additionalinformation collected during these reviews indicates that all purchasers found subject imports from Indiaand the domestic like product comparable in three quality-related criteria. Majorities of purchasers foundsubject imports from both China and Indonesia comparable to the domestic like product in two of thequality-related criteria, and a plurality found these products comparable in the remaining criterion.26

Over the period of review, subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia combinedundersold the comparable domestic like product in 100 of 179 possible comparisons (55.9 percent), andinstances of underselling generally increased over the period.27 This underselling occurred even thoughthe subject imports were under the restraint of the orders. The frequency of underselling was higher thanthat found to be significant during the original investigations. Should the price discipline of the orders beremoved, the frequency of underselling will likely increase further. I find that if the orders are revoked,underselling by the cumulated subject imports will likely be significant.

Given the substitutability of the products and the importance of price in purchasing decisions,domestic producers must compete on the basis of price with subject imports from Chile, China, India, andIndonesia. I have already concluded that revocation of the orders will likely lead to increasing volumesof cumulated subject imports offered at prices that are frequently below those for the domestic likeproduct. In such circumstances, particularly when demand is anticipated to be stable, domestic producerswill be forced either to respond to the import prices or lose market share. Thus, additional quantities ofcumulated subject imports will likely contribute materially to a continuation of the declines in prices forthe domestic like product observed during the original investigations and latter portion of the period ofreview.28 Consequently I find that revocation of the orders will likely have significant price-depressingeffects for the domestic like product.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports fromChile, China, India, and Indonesia gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry. There

29 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 15-16. 30 CR/PR, Tables III-1, III-2, III-6. 31 Tr. at 15 (Shelton), 25 (Newhard). 32 CR/PR, Table III-1. 33 CR/PR, Table III-2. Inventories fluctuated, showing large annual variations. CR/PR, Table III-3. 34 CR/PR, Table I-5. 35 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 36 CR/PR, Table III-1. 37 CR/PR, Table III-5. 38 CR/PR, Table III-6.

40

were declines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment. The combination of declining output and falling prices led to deterioration in the domestic industry’soperating performance. Operating margins declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997,the operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent and at least half of the domestic producers sustainedoperating losses.29

Cumulated subject imports declined, and prices and net sales values increased, immediately afterimposition of the orders in 1999. As a result, the domestic industry showed modest improvements inseveral indicators of performance, including production, shipments, and operating income.30 Someindustry witnesses testified that they perceived improvements in operations immediately after impositionof the orders.31 However, during the latter portion of the period of review, cumulated subject importvolume increased, prices and unit sales values declined, and the industry’s condition deteriorated.

In light of serious deterioration in several industry indicators since 2000, I find the industry’scurrent condition to be vulnerable. Production, whose peak level during the period of review in 2000 was68.9 million pounds, declined to a period low of 50.2 million pounds in 2003.32 U.S. shipments likewisedeclined from a period peak of 73.5 million pounds in 1999 to a period low of 47.7 million pounds in2003.33 The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined irregularly from its periodpeak of 40.7 percent in 1999, reaching a period low of 25.4 percent in 2003.34



Based on the above, should the orders be revoked, cumulated subject import volume from Chile,China, India, and Indonesia will likely increase significantly. These subject imports will likely undersellthe domestic like product at increasing frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressingeffects. In light of their likely volume and price effects if the antidumping duty orders are revoked,cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia will likely exacerbate the declines indomestic industry output, employment, and market share observed during the latter portion of the periodof review. They will also likely cause the domestic industry’s already unprofitable financial performanceto deteriorate further. Consequently I find that revoking the antidumping duty orders on preservedmushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia will likely have a significant adverse effect on thedomestic industry.

39 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 18. 40 CR/PR, Table IV-1. I also note that the volume trends for the cumulated imports from producers that remainsubject to the orders would show a *** over the comparable volume of imports in 1998. 41 CR/PR, Table I-5. 42 Compare CR/PR, Figure IV-2 with id.,Table IV-2, and Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158,Table VII-2. 43 I note that domestic producer *** asserts that there are additional processors of preserved mushrooms in Chinathat could produce 200 to 600 million pounds of mushrooms annually for export to the United States uponrevocation of the order. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-5-6.

41

IV. Determination on Indonesia

For my determination on Indonesia, I cumulate subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia.

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

The quantity of cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia declined from 112.3million pounds in 1995 to 104.0 million pounds in 1996, and then increased to 112.8 million pounds in1997. The quantity of cumulated subject imports was higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997. Cumulated subject import market penetration, measured by quantity, increased from 46.8 percent in 1995to 47.8 percent in 1996, and to 55.2 percent in 1997. Market penetration was higher in interim 1998 thanin interim 1997. The Commission found that, in light of their market penetration levels, both the volumeand increase in market penetration of cumulated subject imports were significant.39

Cumulated subject import volume from China, India, and Indonesia declined from 87.3 millionpounds in 1998 to 61.4 million pounds in 1999 following imposition of the orders. Cumulated subjectimport volume from China, India, and Indonesia rose to 71.8 million pounds in 2000 and then declinedslightly to 71.3 million pounds in 2001. Cumulated subject import volume declined to *** pounds in2002, the year that the order was revoked with respect to Indonesian producer P.T. Zeta Agro. From2002 to 2003, however, cumulated subject import volume from China, India, and Indonesia rose sharply. The *** million pounds of cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia in 2003 was ***the 1998 quantity, notwithstanding the imposition of the orders, and the revocation of the order withrespect to P.T. Zeta Agro, the largest Indonesian supplier.40 These imports had a *** percent share ofU.S. apparent consumption in 2003.41

The increases in cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia observed during theperiod of review indicate that subject producers in these countries have the capability to increase theirexports to the United States. Other information in the record also supports this conclusion. Public dataindicate that China’s exports of canned mushrooms to all sources have increased since 1999notwithstanding the issuance of the order. The 501.8 million pounds of canned mushrooms Chineseproducers exported to all sources in 2002 far exceeds the maximum capacity of 183.8 million pounds thatChinese producers reported to the Commission during the original period of investigation. Indeed, theincrease in exports to all sources from 1999 to 2002 is by itself 160.7 million pounds.42 I infer from thesedata, as well as data from the original investigations that indicated moderate to high capacity utilization inChina, that production capacity in China increased appreciably during the period of review. Clearly,current capacity in China is far greater than the capacity reported to the Commission during the originalinvestigations.43

Indian producers that responded to the Commission questionnaire reported that their capacityincreased throughout the period of review, rising from *** pounds in 1998 to *** pounds in 2003. Indian

44 CR/PR, Tables IV-1, IV-3. 45 CR, pages IV-15 and 16, PR, pages IV-9-10. 46 CR, page IV-14, PR, page IV-8. 47 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, Table IV-3. 48 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, Table IV-3. 49 See Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, ex. 17. 50 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8. 51 CR at IV-5 n.5, PR at IV-4; see also CR/PR, Figure IV-2. 52 CR/PR, Table I-5. 53 In my examination of likely import volume, I have also considered inventories of subject merchandise. Available data concerning inventories of subject merchandise in the United States indicate that they are notsubstantial. CR/PR, Table IV-2. In 2003, inventories of subject merchandise in India were *** the peak level

42

producers’ reported unused capacity in 2003 was *** of the quantity of subject imports from India in thatyear.44

Indonesian producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, and that remain subjectto the orders, reported that capacity declined from *** million pounds in 1998 to *** million pounds in2003, as ***. However, the *** producers in Indonesia reported that their capacity to produce the subjectproduct increased in 2004,45 and projected an increase to *** million pounds in 2005 and 2006.46

Several factors support my conclusion that should the antidumping duty orders be revoked,subject producers in China, India, and Indonesia will likely utilize their increased or unused capacity todirect a significant quantity of additional exports to the United States. First, the subject producers areexport-oriented. Producers in China did not direct a large percentage of their shipments to the homemarket during the original investigations (the most recent period for which data are available for theseproducers) and producers in India and Indonesia *** during the period of review.47 The United States isthe principal export market for producers in India and Indonesia, and was a significant export market forChina during the original period of investigation.48 The attractiveness of the U.S. market to exporters isalso indicated by the numerous “new shipper” reviews instituted by Chinese exporters during the periodof review.49 Moreover, the subject Indonesian producers themselves project that their exports to theUnited States will increase by *** pounds from 2003 to 2004, and by another *** pounds from 2004 to2005.50

An additional factor that makes the United States an attractive export market for producers in thesubject countries is the existence of barriers to importation of the subject merchandise in countries otherthan the United States. Exports of preserved mushrooms to the European Union have been subject to atariff-rate quota system since 1995. The EU system places an annual limit of 50.2 million pounds onimports from China. This is far smaller than the total quantity of Chinese exports to all sources reportedin public data. The aggregate annual quota for imports from all sources other than China, Bulgaria, andRomania – which consequently would include India and Indonesia – is 7.3 million pounds.51

After declining immediately after imposition of the orders, the quantity of cumulated subjectimports from China, India, and Indonesia subsequently increased, with a particularly sharp increaseoccurring between 2002 and 2003. These imports are currently present in the U.S. market in substantialquantities. The subject producers from China, India, and Indonesia have both the ability and theinclination to increase their exports to the United States significantly if the antidumping orders arerevoked. The record indicates that these producers have the ability to increase exports to the UnitedStates rapidly – indeed, the market penetration of cumulated subject imports from China, India, andIndonesia increased by *** percentage points in the single year between 2002 and 2003, notwithstandingthat U.S. apparent consumption rose during this year.52 Consequently I find that the likely volume ofcumulated subject imports would be significant in absolute terms.53

observed during the period of review. CR/PR, Table IV-3. Inventories in Indonesia have been stable during theperiod of review. CR/PR, Table IV-4. Additionally, most of the equipment used by U.S. producers to producepreserved mushrooms cannot easily be converted to produce other products. CR at II-5, PR at II-4. While I do notrely on information concerning inventories or product shifting as a basis for my analysis of likely import volume, Ifind that this information does not detract from my analysis. 54 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 19. 55 CR/PR, Table II-2. 56 CR/PR, Table II-1. 57 CR/PR, Table II-3. 58 The instances of underselling were 51.9 percent in 1999, 50.0 percent in 2000, 42.4 percent in 2001, 60.6percent in 2002, and 71.9 percent in 2003. CR/PR, Table V-5.

43

B. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor inpurchasing decisions and that cumulated subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia were at leastmoderate substitutes for the domestic like product. It found there to be significant underselling by thesubject imports, with underselling occurring in 61 of 118 quarterly comparisons. It also noted that pricesgenerally declined during the period of investigation. The Commission found that prices declined at agreater rate than cost of goods sold, and concluded that the subject imports had significant price-depressing effects.54

The importance of price as a factor in purchasing decisions has not changed since the originalinvestigations. All 20 responding purchasers in these reviews indicated that “lowest price” was a “veryimportant” or “somewhat important” purchasing factor.55 Price was the factor purchasers named secondmost frequently (after quality) as the most important factor in selecting a supplier, and was tied withquality as the most frequently cited factor of second most importance.56 Consequently, I again find thatprice is an important factor in purchasing decisions for preserved mushrooms.

I also find, as the Commission did in the original investigations, that the cumulated subjectimports are at least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product. The Commission observed in theoriginal investigations that purchasers did not perceive significant quality distinctions between thedomestic like product and subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia. The additional informationcollected during these reviews indicates that all purchasers found subject imports from India and thedomestic like product comparable in three quality-related criteria. Majorities of purchasers found subjectimports from both China and Indonesia comparable to the domestic like product in two of the quality-related criteria, and a plurality found these products comparable in the remaining criterion.57

Over the period of review, subject imports from China, India, and Indonesia combined undersoldthe comparable domestic like product in 100 of 179 possible comparisons (55.9 percent), and instances ofunderselling generally increased over the period.58 This underselling occurred even though the subjectimports were under the restraint of the orders. The frequency of underselling was higher than that foundto be significant during the original investigations. Should the price discipline of the orders be removed,the frequency of underselling will likely increase further. I find that if the orders are revoked,underselling by the cumulated subject imports will likely be significant.

Given the substitutability of the products and the importance of price in purchasing decisions,domestic producers must compete on the basis of price with subject imports from China, India, andIndonesia. I have already concluded that revocation of the orders will likely lead to increasing volumesof cumulated subject imports offered at prices that are frequently below those for the domestic likeproduct. In such circumstances, particularly when demand is anticipated to be stable, domestic producerswill be forced either to respond to the prices of the imports or lose market share. Thus, additionalquantities of cumulated subject imports will likely contribute materially to a continuation of the declines

59 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 19; CR/PR, Tables IV-1-3. Between the first quarterof 1999, when the orders were first announced and the final quarter of 2003, prices for all three U.S. productsdeclined. Prices for product 2, the 68-ounce can, declined *** percent, and prices for products 1 and 3 declined ***percent and *** percent, respectively. CR/PR, Tables V-1-3. 60 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 21. 61 CR/PR, Tables III-1, III-2, III-6. 62 Tr. at 15 (Shelton), 25 (Newhard). 63 CR/PR, Table III-1. 64 CR/PR, Table III-2. Inventories fluctuated, showing large annual variations. CR/PR, Table III-3. 65 CR/PR, Table I-5. 66 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 67 CR/PR, Table III-1. 68 CR/PR, Table III-5. 69 CR/PR, Table III-6.

44

in prices for the domestic like product observed during the original investigations and the latter portion ofthe period of review.59 Consequently I find that revocation of the orders will likely have significant price-depressing effects for the domestic like product.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports fromChina, India, and Indonesia gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry. There weredeclines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment. Thecombination of declining output and falling prices led to deterioration in the domestic industry’soperating performance. Operating margins declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997,the operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent and at least half of the domestic producers sustainedoperating losses.60

Cumulated subject imports declined, and prices and net sales values increased, immediately afterimposition of the orders in 1999. As a result, the domestic industry showed modest improvements inseveral indicators of performance, including production, shipments, and operating income.61 Someindustry witnesses testified that they perceived improvements in operations immediately after impositionof the orders.62 However, during the latter portion of the period of review, cumulated subject importvolume increased, prices and unit sales values declined, and the industry’s condition deteriorated.

In light of serious deterioration in several industry indicators since 2000, I find the industry’scurrent condition to be vulnerable. Production, whose peak level during the period of review in 2000 was68.9 million pounds, declined to a period low of 50.2 million pounds in 2003.63 U.S. shipments likewisedeclined from a period peak of 73.5 million pounds in 1999 to a period low of 47.7 million pounds in2003.64 The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined irregularly from its periodpeak of 40.7 percent in 1999, reaching a period low of 25.4 percent in 2003.65



45

Based on the above, should the orders be revoked, cumulated subject import volume from China,India, and Indonesia will likely increase significantly. These subject imports will likely undersell thedomestic like product at increasing frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressing effects. Inlight of their likely volume and price effects upon revocation of the antidumping duty orders, cumulatedsubject imports from China, India, and Indonesia will likely exacerbate the declines in domestic industryoutput, employment, and market share observed during the latter portion of the period of review. Theywill also likely cause the domestic industry’s already unprofitable financial performance to deterioratefurther. Consequently I find that revoking the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms fromChina, India, and Indonesia will likely have a significant adverse effect on the domestic industry.

1 119 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

47

SEPARATE AND CONCURRING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER LANE

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding ina five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidywould be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonablyforeseeable time.1. Based on the record in these five-year reviews, I determine that material injury islikely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders on subject imports of certainpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia are revoked.

I join in the discussion found in Sections I and II of the majority opinion. However, I do notreach the same conclusion as my colleagues with regard to cumulation of subject imports. In thesereviews, I have determined to cumulate subject imports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia. I havedone so because the record indicates that subject imports from these countries compete or would competewith one another and with the domestic like product. In contrast to the original investigations, andcontrary to the determination of my colleagues in these five-year reviews, I determine that subject importsfrom Indonesia do compete, or are likely to compete, with imports from China, India and Chile.

CUMULATION

With regard to the “Framework” of the provisions of the Act and Commission determinationswith regard to cumulation, I join in the discussion of my colleagues in Section III.A. of the majorityopinion. Likewise, with regard to the “Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact,” I join in thediscussion in Section III.B. of the majority opinion. Indeed, the majority found that in the case of India,China, Chile and Indonesia, subject imports would not be likely have no discernible adverse impact onthe domestic industry if the orders were revoked. I concur with that decision.

I disagree with the majority opinion regarding reasonable overlap of competition and cumulation. I find that subject imports from China, India, Chile and Indonesia should be cumulated.

The Commission generally examines four factors in determining whether there will be a likelyreasonable overlap of competition. These factors are fungibility, geographic overlap, channels ofdistribution, and simultaneous presence in the market. In addition to these factors, the Commission alsodetermines in five-year reviews whether there are any other considerations that would lead them toexercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from one or more countries. Although a majority ofmy colleagues have exercised their discretion not to cumulate that subject imports from Indonesia withimports from any other subject countries, I have exercised my discretion differently.

Both the original investigations and the majority opinion in this review found the fungibilityfactor for cumulation to be satisfied. I concur with the discussion of my colleagues regarding fungibility. Likewise, I concur with the discussion of my colleagues in the majority View of the Commissionregarding geographic overlap and likely simultaneous presence. These factors are also satisfied forpurposes of cumulation of subject imports.

With respect to channels of distribution, I concur with my colleagues to the extent they determinethat these factors support cumulation of subject imports from Chile, China and India. However, I believethat the evidence also supports cumulation of Indonesia with Chile, China and India.

I find that information submitted by the Coalition For Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade (“theCoalition”) indicating that the sole Chilean producer of preserved mushrooms now produces four andeight ounce cans typically sold in the retail channel of distribution, and markets such cans in the Mexican

2 Coalition Posthearing Brief, ex. 2.

3 CR/PR, Table F-2.

48

retail market2 to be sufficient to determine that the Chilean producer is likely to enter the U.S. retailchannel of distribution if the antidumping order is revoked. The lack of information regarding an existingretail distribution network within the United States for subject imports from Chile does not dissuade mefrom this conclusion. I believe that distribution through existing marketers and wholesalers in the UnitedStates is a reasonable expectation for subject imports from Chile if the antidumping order is revoked. Therefore, I find that it is likely that subject imports from Chile will enter the U.S. retail channel ofdistribution should the antidumping order be revoked.

I also find, as the Coalition maintains, that not all the Indonesian product sold in the retailchannel of distribution is sold in sizes typically used by home consumers. During the period of review,between 3.3 and 13.7 percent of annual imports from Indonesia were in cans above 255 grams.3 TheGeneral Mills witness testified at the hearing that Indonesian products in this size (68-ounce cans) aresold in the retail channel through club stores such as Costco, and that purchasers such as small restaurantsmay purchase such products at such stores rather than from food service distributors. Consequently, theIndonesian product sold through the retail channel of distribution will compete for the same customerswith product from other sources sold through the food service channel of distribution. I find this fact asufficient basis to conclude that subject imports from Indonesia would have a substantial presence in thefood service channel of distribution should the Orders be revoked.

For these reasons, I find that the conclusions the Commission reached in the originalinvestigations concerning reasonable overlap of competition of subject imports from Chile and Indonesiado not control the issue of likely overlap of competition in these five-year reviews. Accordingly, withrespect to subject imports from Chile and Indonesia, I find that there is a likely overlap of competitionwith the domestic like product and also with subject imports from not only with China and India, but alsowith each other.

With regard to “Other Considerations,” unlike my colleagues, I find that there are not significantdifferences in current and likely conditions of competition between subject imports from Chile, China,India or Indonesia. Consequently, I have exercised my discretion to cumulate subject imports from Chile,China, India and Indonesia.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF THEANTIDUMPING ORDERS ARE REVOKED

I join the majority opinion regarding the standard in a five year review and the majority’sdiscussion on the Conditions of Competition. Furthermore, I concur with and join the majority views withregard to excluding the data submitted by General Mills with regard to pricing procucts 1 and 3. However, due to my decision to cumulate subject imports from India, China, Chile and Indonesia, I shallconsider the likelihood of material injury based on cumulated data that includes subject imports from allfour countries.

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports for Chile, China, India and Indonesia

The quantity of cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia declined from122.95 million pounds in 1995 to 111.12 million pounds in 1996, and then increased to 118.28 millionpounds in 1997. The quantity of cumulated subject imports was higher in interim 1998 than in interim1997. Cumulated subject import market penetration, measured by quantity, increased irregularly from51.2 percent in 1995 to 57.9 percent in 1997, and was higher in interim 1998 than in interim 1997. The

4 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 12-13.

5 CR/PR, Table I-5.

6 INV-W-005, Table VII-1 (Jan. 20, 1999).

7 CR/PR, Figure IV-1.

8 Compare CR/PR, Figure IV-2 with id., Table IV-2, and Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub.3158,Table VII-2.

9 We note that domestic producer *** asserts that there are additional processors of preserved mushrooms inChina that could produce 200 to 600 million pounds of mushrooms annually for export to the United States uponrevocation of the order. CR at IV-7, PR at IV-5-6. 10 CR/PR, Tables IV-1, IV-3.

11 Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 10.

12 CR at IV-14-16, PR at IV-9-10; Compare Indonesian Respondents Posthearing Brief at 10 with CR/PR, TableIV-4.

49

Commission found that, in light of their market penetration levels, both the volume and increase inmarket penetration of cumulated subject imports were significant..4

Cumulated subject import volume from Chile, China, India and Indonesia declined from 93.786million pounds in 1998 to 61.439 million pounds in 1999 following imposition of the orders. Cumulatedsubject import volume from Chile, China, India and Indonesia declined slightly in 2001, declinedsignificantly in 2002 (reflecting the revocation of the Order regarding PT Zeta Agro), and then increasedsharply in 2003. These imports had a *** percent share of U.S. apparent consumption in 2003.5

Subject producers China, India, Chile and Indonesia have the capability to increase their exportsto the United States. The record compiled in the original investigations indicated that the Chileanproducer had *** capacity utilization, and shipped *** proportion of its shipments to the home market.6 Notwithstanding that this producer is export oriented, public data indicate that Chilean exports of cannedmushrooms to all sources were considerably lower during the period of review than they were prior to theissuance of the antidumping order.7 Thus, the information available suggests that the Chilean producer islikely to have at least the amount of unused capacity it had during the original investigations.

Public data indicate that China’s exports of canned mushrooms to all sources have increased since1999 notwithstanding the issuance of the order. The 501.8 million pounds of canned mushrooms Chineseproducers exported to all sources in 2002 far exceeds the maximum capacity of 183.8 million pounds thatChinese producers reported to the Commission during the original period of investigation. Indeed, theincrease in exports to all sources from 1999 to 2002 is by itself 160.8 million pounds.8 We infer fromthese data, as well as data from the original investigations indicating moderate to high capacity utilizationin China, that production capacity in China increased appreciably during the period of review. In anyevent, current capacity in China is far greater than the capacity reported to the Commission during theoriginal investigations.9

Indian producers that responded to the Commission questionnaire reported that their capacityincreased throughout the period of review, rising from *** pounds in 1998 to *** pounds in 2003. Indianproducers reported unused capacity in 2003 was *** of the quantity of 2003 subject imports from India.10

Questionnaire data indicate that two Indonesian producers, ***, will increase their capacity by*** pounds between 2003 and 2004, and that these producers’ capacity will remain at the 2004 level in2005 and 2006.11 Even assuming arguendo that the two Indonesian producers, PT Dieng and PT Indo,which suspended production of preserved mushrooms in 2003, will not produce mushrooms, and willhave zero capacity in 2004, the capacity increases projected by *** will still result in a *** poundcapacity increase for subject Indonesian producers from 2003 to 2004.12 The Indonesian producers

13 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8 n.20.

14 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, TablesIV-3, IV-4.

15 INV-W-005, Table VII-1; Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3158, Table IV-1; CR/PR, Table IV-3.

16 CR at IV-5 n.5, PR at IV-; see also CR/PR, Figure IV-2.

17 In my examination of likely import volume, I have also considered inventories of subject merchandise. Available data concerning inventories in the United States and the subject countries indicate that they are notsubstantial. CR/PR, Tables IV-2, IV-3. Additionally, most of the equipment used to produce preserved mushroomscannot easily be converted to produce other products. CR at II-5, PR at II-4. While I do not rely on informationconcerning inventories or product shifting as a basis for my analysis of likely import volume, I find that thisinformation does not detract from my analysis.

18 CR/PR, Table II-2.

50

themselves acknowledge that some of this increased capacity will be used to increase export shipments tothe United States. They project that their exports will increase by *** pounds from 2003 to 2004, and byanother *** pounds from 2004 to 2005.13

Several factors support a conclusion that subject producers in Chile, China, India and Indonesiawill likely utilize their increased or unused capacity to direct significant quantity of additional exports tothe United States should the antidumping duty orders be revoked. First, the subject producers are export-oriented. Producers in Chile and China did not direct a large percentage of their shipments to the homemarket during the original investigations (the most recent period for which data are available for theseproducers) and producers in India and Indonesia have not done so during the period of review.14 TheUnited States is India’s and Indonesia’s principal export market, as was Chile’s principal export marketduring the original period of investigation, and was a significant export market for China during theoriginal period of investigation.15

An additional factor that makes the United States an attractive export market for producers in thesubject countries is the existence of barriers to importation to the subject merchandise in countries otherthan the United States. Exports of preserved mushrooms to the European Union have been subject to atariff-rate quota system since 1995. The EU system places an annual limit of 50.2 million pounds ofimports from China. This is far smaller than the total quantity of Chinese exports to all sources reportedin public data. The aggregate annual quota for imports from all sources other than China, Bulgaria, andRomania which consequently would include Chile, India and Indonesia is 7.3 million pounds.16

After declining immediately after imposition of the orders, the quantity of cumulated subjectimports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia increased sharply during the corresponding portion of theperiod of review. These imports are currently present in the U.S. market in substantial quantities. Thissharp increase in quantity caused a corresponding increase in market penetration in 2002 and 2003. Taking this and the fact that the subject producers from Chile, China, India and Indonesia have both theability and the inclination to increase their exports to the United States significantly upon revocation ofthe antidumping orders, I find that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports would be significant inabsolute terms.17

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

The importance of price as a factor in purchasing decisions has not changed since the originalinvestigations. All 20 responding purchasers in these reviews indicated that lowest price was a veryimportant or a somewhat important purchasing factor.18 Price was the factor purchasers named secondmost frequently (after quality) as the most important factor in selecting a supplier, and tied with quality as


20 Original Chile Determination, USITC Pub. 3144 at 18.


22 For the reasons provided in section IV.D.2. of the majority opinion, Commissioner Lane has not included inthe pricing database information General Mills submitted concerning pricing products 1. *** cumulated subjectimports undersold the domestic like product in *** of 179 quarterly comparisons during the period of review. However, *** cumulated subject imports still undersold the domestic like product in *** of 179 quarterlycomparisons. CR/PR, Table V-5.

23 Compare Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 13-15.

24 Original Indonesia Determination, USITC Pub. 3159 at 15-16.

51

the most frequently cited as the factor of second most importance.19 Consequently, I find that price is animportant factor in purchasing decisions for preserved mushrooms.

I also find, as the Commission found in the original investigations, that the cumulated subjectimports are at least moderate substitutes with the domestic like product. In the original investigations thepurchasers did not perceive significant quality distinctions between the domestic like product and subjectimports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia. The most recent information available on this issueconcerning subject imports from Chile continues to be that from the original investigations.20 Theadditional information collected during these reviews indicates that all purchasers found subject importsfrom India and the domestic like product comparable in three quality-related criteria. Majorities ofpurchasers found subject imports from both China and Indonesia and the domestic like productcomparable in two of the quality-related criteria, and a plurality found these products comparable in theremaining criterion.21

Even with the orders in place, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product innearly 60 percent of quarterly comparisons.22 This is a higher frequency of underselling than that foundto be significant during the original investigations.23 Should the price discipline of the orders be removed,the frequency of underselling will likely increase further. I find that if the orders are revoked,underselling by the cumulated subject imports will likely be significant.

Given the substitutability of the products and the importance of price in purchasing decisions,domestic producers must compete on the basis of price with subject imports from Chile, China, India andIndonesia. I have already concluded that revocation of the orders will likely lead to increasing volumesof cumulated subject imports offered at prices that are frequently below those for the domestic likeproduct. In such circumstances, particularly when demand is anticipated to be stable, domestic producerswill be forced either to respond to the import’s prices or to lose market share. Thus, additional quantitiesof cumulated subject imports will likely contribute materially to a continuation of the declines in pricesfor the domestic like product observed during the original investigations and the latter portion of theperiod of review. Accordingly, I find that revocation of the orders will likely have significant price-depressing effects for the domestic like product.


In the original investigations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports fromChile, China, India and Indonesia gained market share at the expense of the domestic industry. Therewere declines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, and employment. The combination of declining output and falling prices led to deterioration in the domestic industry’soperating performance. Operating margins declined throughout the period of investigation. During 1997,the operating margin had declined to 1.3 percent and at least half of the domestic producers sustainedoperating losses.24

25 CR/PR, Tables III-1, III-2, III-6.

26 Tr. at 15 (Shelton), 25 (Newhard).

27 CR/PR, Table III-1. Tr. at 15 (Shelton), 25 (Newhard).

28 CR/PR, Table III-2. Inventories fluctuated, showing large annual variations. CR/PR, Table III-3.

29 CR/PR, Table I-5.

30 CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

31 CR/PR, Table III-1. See also CR/PR at III-1 n.2 (describing possible producer-specific reasons for lowcapacity utilization).

32 CR/PR, Table III-5.

33 CR/PR, Table III-6.

52

Cumulated subject imports declined, and prices and net sales values increased, immediately afterimposition of the orders in 1999. As a result, the domestic industry showed modest improvements inseveral indicators of performance, including production, shipments, and operating income.25 Someindustry witnesses testified that they perceived improvements in operations immediately after impositionof the orders.26 During the latter portion of the period of review, however, cumulated subject importvolume increased, prices and unit sales values declined, and the industry’s condition deteriorated.

In light of serious deterioration in several industry indicators since 2000, I find the industry’scurrent condition to be vulnerable. Production, whose peak level during the period of review in 2000 was68.9 million pounds, declined to a period low of 50.2 million pounds in 2003.27 U.S. shipments likewisedeclined from a period peak of 73.5 million pounds in 1999 to a period low of 47.7 million pounds in2003.28 The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined irregularly from its periodpeak of 40.7 percent in 1999, reaching a period low of 25.4 percent in 2003.29 Two firms closedproduction facilities after 2000.30 This caused capacity to decline after 2000. Nevertheless, capacityutilization was only 25.1 percent (a period peak) in 2003.31 Employment declined irregularly.32 Thedomestic industry’s last profitable year was 2000, when it had a positive operating margin of 3.2 percent. In 2003, the industry had an operating margin of negative 2.7 percent and three of six producers reportedoperating losses.33

For the reasons discussed above, should the orders be revoked, cumulated subject import volumefrom Chile, China, India and Indonesia will likely increase significantly. These subject imports willlikely undersell the domestic like product at increasing frequency, and will likely have significant price-depressing effects. In light of their likely volume and price effects upon revocation of the antidumpingduty orders, cumulated subject imports from Chile, China, India and Indonesia will likely exacerbate thedeclines in domestic industry output, employment, and market share observed during the latter portion ofthe period of review. They will also likely cause the domestic industry’s already unprofitable financialperformance to deteriorate further. Consequently, I find that revoking the antidumping duty orders onpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India and Indonesia will likely have a significant adverse effecton the domestic industry.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that the subject countries, India, China, Chile andIndonesia should be cumulated for the purposes of these reviews and that revocation of the antidumpingduty orders on preserved mushrooms from these countries would be likely to lead to a continuation orrecurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States in a reasonably foreseeable time.

1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

2 Final Staff Report, confidential version (CR) at Figure IV-2, Tables IV-3 and IV-4; public version (PR) atFigure IV-2, Tables IV-3 and IV-4.

3 CR at I-14, PR at I-12.

53

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I. Introduction

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding ina five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidywould be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonablyforeseeable time.1 Based on the record in this first five-year review, I determine that material injury is notlikely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the order on subject imports of certainpreserved mushrooms from Indonesia is revoked.

I join my colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product, domestic industry, andconditions of competition (sections I, II, and IV.B), and I join my colleagues’ determination regarding thelikelihood of the recurrence or continuation of material injury if the orders on Chile, China, and Indiawere revoked (section IV.C). In these reviews, I have exercised my discretion to cumulate subjectimports from Chile, China, and India for the reasons stated in the Views of the Commission. I have,however, opted to exercise my discretion to not cumulate subject imports from China and India with thosefrom Indonesia in order to make my determination as to whether a continuation or recurrence of materialinjury is likely if the order on Indonesia were revoked.

II. Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order on Indonesia wererevoked

A. Cumulation

I have opted to exercise my discretion and do not cumulate subject imports from Indonesia withthose of the other countries subject to this review for purposes of my determination regarding Indonesia. I agree with my colleagues that it is not likely that subject imports from any of the four countries wouldhave no discernible adverse impact upon revocation, and I agree with my colleagues that a reasonableoverlap of competition among subject imports from Indonesia, China, and India is likely upon revocation(sections III.A-C).

The industry in Indonesia is distinguished from those in China and India by differences in itscapacity, as the industry in Indonesia is significantly smaller than in the original investigation, whilethose in China and India appear to have grown significantly.2 The industry in Indonesia is alsodistinguishable in that one significant producer, PT Zeta Agro, succeeded in having the order as to itsimports revoked in February 2002.3

I find that other factors also distinguish the industry in Indonesia from those in China and India,and those factors indicate that, upon revocation, subject imports from Indonesia would face differentconditions of competition. The imposition of the orders had diverse effects on subject imports. Subjectimports from China were essentially barred from the U.S. market at first, but then increased at impressive

4 CR/PR at Table I-1.

5 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Table I-1.

6 CR/PR at Table F-1.

7 CR/PR at Table C-1.


9 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Table I-2.


54

rates. Subject imports from China more than doubled between 2000 and 2001, going from 8.3 millionpounds to 19.4 million pounds, and more than doubled again between 2002 and 2003, rising from 20.6million pounds to 48.1 million pounds. In the year that the orders were imposed, subject imports fromIndia ballooned, increasing from 12.6 million pounds in 1998 to 32.0 million pounds in 1999. Thevolume of subject imports from India slackened somewhat after 1999, but in 2003 the volume of subjectimports from India was still four-and-a-half times higher than it had been in 1995.4

The imposition of the orders also brought significant changes, and instability, to the channels ofdistribution for subject imports from China and India. In the original investigation, subject imports fromChina were concentrated in the food service sector, but a significant share of imports went to the retailmarket. For subject imports from India, the opposite was true, with a majority going to retail but asignificant minority sold into the food service sector.5 In the years since the orders were imposed,however, there has been no stability in channels of distribution for subject imports from China and India. In 1999, *** percent of subject imports from China were reported as sold to the food service sector; in2003, *** percent of subject imports from China were reported as sold to the retail sector. For subjectimports from India, *** percent of subject imports in 1999 were reported as sold to the food servicesector, but by 2003, that sector accounted for *** percent, while the retail market accounted for ***percent.6

The imposition of the order had a very different effect on subject imports from Indonesia. Duringthe period of the original investigation, the volume of subject imports from Indonesia had increasedsomewhat. In the years immediately following the imposition of the order, subject import volumeremained relatively steady and within 10 percent of the levels reached during the period of the originalinvestigation. In more recent years, subject import volume has declined, but total imports from Indonesia,including subject and nonsubject imports, have been extremely stable, hovering around 22 million poundsin each of the last three years.7 Subject import volume from Indonesia remained steady between 1999 and2000 despite a 10-percent increase in apparent domestic consumption, and remained steady between 2002and 2003, despite an 8.5 percent increase in apparent domestic consumption. Subject imports fromIndonesia gained no market share throughout the period of review despite having consistently lowmargins. When the order as to one major exporter, PT Zeta Agro, was revoked, its shipments to the U.S.remained relatively flat, and total imports from Indonesia were flat.8

A similar stability prevailed in the channels of distribution for subject imports from Indonesia. During the period of the original investigation, just over *** percent of its shipments went to the retailsector, with the remainder going to the food service sector.9 In the years since the order was imposed,subject imports from Indonesia remained highly concentrated in that same channel of distribution.10

During the original investigation, subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic likeproduct less frequently than did other subject imports. That trend continued during the post-order period. Subject imports from China and India undersold the domestic like product in approximately two-thirds ofthe quarterly comparisons; subject imports from Indonesia undersold the domestic like product in less

11 CR/PR at Table V-5. Even if ***, subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domestic like product morefrequently than did other subject imports. Id.

12 The decline in subject imports after 2001 was driven largely by the exclusion of PT Zeta Agro from the order.

13 Tr. at 148 (Mr. Larson); tr. at 66, 67 (Mr. Kazemi).

14 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 with Table C-1.

15 Tr. at 142, 143, 144 (Mr. Larson).

55

than half of the quarterly comparisons, and at times oversold ***.11

Subject imports from Indonesia have been relatively stable in both volume and pricing patterns,and subject import volume in particular has not been responsive to shifts in overall apparent domesticconsumption, shifts in the volume of other subject imports, or changes in its own margins.12 Subjectimports from China and India appear to have been significantly affected by the imposition of the orders,and as a result both volume and channels of distribution have been unpredictable and apparentlyopportunistic.

These differences in trends suggest that subject imports from Indonesia have entered the U.S.market under different conditions of competition than have the other subject imports. Nothing in therecord suggests that these differences are likely to be removed upon revocation. Therefore cumulatingsubject imports from Indonesia with those from China or India would obscure important differencesbetween those subject imports and the likely effects upon revocation. I therefore exercise my discretionand decline to cumulate subject imports from Indonesia with those from China and India.

B. Conditions of competition

I adopt the conditions of competition as discussed by my colleagues in section IV.B of the Viewsof the Commission above. I find two additional conditions of competition to be relevant to myconsideration of the likely effects of revocation of the order on Indonesia.

The industry in Indonesia is focused on producing preserved mushrooms, predominantly for theU.S. market. The supply of mushrooms available for the production of preserved mushrooms inIndonesia is therefore not dependent on demand for fresh mushrooms or the share of mushrooms thatcannot meet the requirements of the market for fresh mushrooms.13 The industry in Indonesia hashistorically operated at far higher capacity utilization rates than has the domestic industry.14

One importer, General Mills, has consistently accounted for a significant share of all imports ofpreserved mushrooms from Indonesia. The share has varied from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in2001. In 2003, General Mills accounted for *** percent of subject imports and *** percent of totalimports from Indonesia. General Mills’ imports have included preserved mushrooms in both small andlarge containers, in stems and pieces and in sliced whole mushrooms. However, General Mills’ importsprimarily have consisted of branded products that sell for a premium in the retail market.15

C. Volume

As noted above, subject import volume from Indonesia remained remarkably stable throughoutboth the original investigation period and the period since the orders were imposed. Import volumedeclined over the last three years, a decline that was further hastened by the revocation of the order as toone exporter. This general downward trend persisted despite and through upturns in apparent domesticconsumption in 2000 and 2003. By 2003, subject imports from Indonesia accounted for only *** percentof apparent domestic consumption, the lowest share since the beginning of the original investigation

16 CR/PR at Table I-1.

17 CR/PR at Tables II-2 and II-4.


19 CR at IV-12 nn. 18-19, PR at IV-8 nn. 18-19.

20 CR at IV-12-IV-14. PR at IV-8.

21 Exports to the United States in 2003, as reported by responding producers in Indonesia, were *** millionpounds; imports, as reported by Commerce and Customs, were *** million pounds. CR/PR at Tables IV-1 and IV-4.

22 I note that exports from Indonesia to the European Union are limited.

23 Responding producers report planned capacity of *** million pounds for 2004-2006; production capacity forall subject producers between 1998 and 2000 was *** million pounds. CR at IV-12, IV-13 and Table IV-4, PR atIV-8 and Table IV-4.

56

period.16 The record evidence suggests this pattern would continue upon revocation. Given the modestshare of apparent domestic consumption likely to be held by subject imports and some limitations incompetition between the domestic like product and subject imports, the volume of subject imports fromIndonesia is not likely to be significant upon revocation.

Customers perceive few differences between preserved mushrooms from different sources, andprice is an important factor for purchasers in choosing a supply source.17 Nonetheless, competitionbetween the domestic like product and subject imports from Indonesia is somewhat limited. Subjectimports from Indonesia are heavily concentrated in the retail sector, and concentration in that sectormeans a corresponding concentration in small cans and jars, as opposed to the 68-ounce cans sold to foodservice or industrial users. The domestic like product is sold in all channels and in both sizes, but sales ofthe domestic like product are more evenly distributed, and sales to industrial users and food service usersaccounted for *** of sales of the domestic like product throughout the period since the orders wereimposed.18 Furthermore, a significant portion of the subject imports from Indonesia are sold as name-brand products, further distinguishing those imports.

Parties to these investigations have made conflicting arguments about the existing and futurecapacity for preserved mushroom production in Indonesia. Domestic producers are certain that theinformation gathered by the Commission does not include all producers, and that two producers reportedas exiting production ***.19 Responding producers in Indonesia deny these allegations, but admit thatexpansions in production capacity are planned for 2004-2005.20 In light of planned capacity expansions,and a continued reliance on the U.S. market, domestic producers argue that the volume of subject importsfrom Indonesia upon revocation would be significant.

However, the record suggests otherwise. The data gathered by Commission staff in thisinvestigation as to the industry in Indonesia cover five firms. The similarity between reported exports bythis group in 2003 and imports as reported by Commerce suggest that the Commission’s data cover themajor producers of preserved mushrooms in Indonesia.21 The industry in Indonesia is admittedly orientedtoward the U.S. market.22 But it has been so oriented since at least 1995, yet the volume of imports wasgenerally stable or declining, regardless of changes in apparent domestic consumption or the apparentexclusion of other subject imports from the market. Assuming that responding producers are correct, andthe planned expansions take place, production capacity accounted for by subject producers will still besmaller than in any year between 1998 and 2000.23 Even after expansion, production capacity available tosubject producers will be far lower than in the period of the original investigation, when subject importsaccounted for up to 16 percent of the U.S. market. Even after expansion, production capacity will still belower than in 2002, a year in which subject imports accounted for only *** percent of apparent domestic

24 CR at IV-14 and Table I-1, PR at IV-8 and Table I-1.

25 No party has argued that product shifting is an issue in this investigation.

26 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

27 CR at IV-14 n.20, PR at IV-8 n.20.

28 INV-W-005 (January 20, 1999) at Tables V-1 and V-3.

29 In making this finding, I note that in its original determination, the Commission found that subject imports hadsignificant price-depressing effects, but that finding was made on the basis of cumulated subject imports from China,India, and Indonesia. Original Indonesia Determination at 19.

30 CR/PR at Table V-1.

31 CR/PR at Table V-2.

57

consumption in the United States.24 25 As a final matter, producers in Indonesia reported only modestinventories at the end of 2003.26

I am mindful that respondents themselves project increased exports to the U.S. market in 2004-2006.27 Even if respondents’ projections are accurate, subject imports from Indonesia will remain modestand probably account for less than 10 percent of apparent domestic consumption. However, the volumeof post-revocation imports from PT Zeta Agro suggest that significant change upon revocation is unlikely. Imports from PT Zeta Agro increased in the year that the order was revoked, but imports were flatbetween 2002 and 2003, despite an increase in apparent domestic consumption. The steadiness of totalIndonesian imports suggests that the initial increase in import volume came at the expense of subjectIndonesian producers rather than the domestic industry, while the unchanged levels of non-subjectimports thereafter suggest that PT Zeta Agro did not easily find additional purchasers, even in a yearwhere overall consumption increased.

Nothing in the record suggests that the remaining subject producers would have a differentexperience after revocation or would be more successful in gaining market share at the expense of thedomestic industry than PT Zeta Agro. Rather, the evidence suggests continuing stability, limitedcompetition, and the likelihood that the volume of subject imports from Indonesia would not besignificant upon revocation.

D. Price

Subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domestic like product more frequently than did othersubject imports during the original investigation. Subject imports from Indonesia oversold the domesticlike product in 26 of 42 quarterly observations, including 11 of 14 quarters for product 3, whole slicedmushrooms in small cans, a retail product, and 12 of 14 quarters for product 1, another retail product.28 Between 1995 and 1997 the volume of subject imports from Indonesia actually increased, both absolutelyand relatively, despite persistent overselling in its dominant products. The record suggests that subjectimports from Indonesia did not gain market share by underselling and that subject imports from Indonesiadid not suppress or depress prices for the domestic like product.29

In the years since the orders were imposed, subject imports from Indonesia continued to oversellthe domestic like product frequently. For product 1, four-ounce cans of stems and pieces, subject importsfrom Indonesia oversold the domestic like product consistently, ***. Even if ***, subject importsoversold the domestic like product throughout most of the period. Subject imports undersold in the lasttwo years of the period, but ***.30 Subject imports of product 2, the 68-ounce can product, oversold thedomestic like product in most quarters.31 Only in product 3 did subject imports consistently undersell the

32 CR/PR at Table V-3. The General Mills equivalent product 3 item, subject imports of sliced mushrooms in a4.5-ounce glass jar, *** the domestic like product, ***. CR/PR at Table G-4. Given the fact that General Mills soldits subject imports from Indonesia as branded products, Tr. at 142, 143, 144 (Mr. Larson), I find it likely that thoseproducts sold for a premium in the U.S. market. In reaching my determination, I do not rely on the quarterly pricingdata as submitted, though I find this data support my conclusions.

33 CR/PR at Tables G-1-G-4. One importer was not able to separate out PT Zeta Agro imports from subjectimports, but that importer’s prices again *** the domestic like product. Id.

34 I note that Commerce has determined the likely dumping margins to be 7.94 percent for PT Dieng Djaya andPT Surya Jaya, and 11.26 percent for all others covered by the antidumping duty order. CR at I-11, PR at I-9.


58

domestic like product, and for that product the reported prices accounted for modest amounts of imports.32

As noted above, customers appear to perceive few differences in preserved mushrooms fromdifferent sources. In particular, the record does not support the contention by a respondent that customersappreciate subject imports from Indonesia as including more fancy mushrooms. And, as noted, priceappears to be an important factor in choosing a supplier. Nonetheless, the record indicates that subjectimports from Indonesia frequently oversold the domestic like product both before and after the order wasimposed. The record also suggests that overselling had little impact on subject import volume, as subjectimport volume from Indonesia remained steady between 1995 and 2000 despite frequently overselling thedomestic like product in its most important products.

Again, the experience of PT Zeta Agro after revocation is instructive. The volume of importsfrom PT Zeta Agro increased in the first year after revocation and were flat the following year. Thepricing data available suggest that PT Zeta Agro products *** the domestic like product, and ***.33 PTZeta Agro was therefore able to maintain its sales level in 2003 ***.

The evidence on the record, particularly the evidence from the original investigation and the post-revocation behavior of PT Zeta Agro, suggest that revocation will have little effect on the prices ofsubject imports from Indonesia. The prominence of branded product, capable of earning a premium in themarketplace, among subject imports further suggests that subject imports are no more likely to suppressor depress domestic prices than in the past. Given that significant change in import volume is not likelyupon revocation, and given that subject imports frequently oversold the domestic like product even whenremoved from the discipline of an order, I find that significant underselling by the subject imports ascompared to domestic like products is not likely, and that the subject imports are not likely to enter theUnited States at prices that would otherwise have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on theprice of domestic like products. I find it likely that subject imports will not lead to significant pricedepression or suppression.34

E. Impact

I find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. The domestic industry’s market share peaked in1999 at 40.7 percent; in 2003, it was 25.4 percent. The domestic industry’s production peaked as longago as 2000 and in 2003, production by the domestic industry was down 27 percent from that peak,although domestic consumption was down by less than five percent. In 2003 the domestic industryutilized only 25.1 percent of its capacity, even though its productive capacity by 2003 had contracted by28.7 percent since 1998. Along with its productive capacity, the industry shed nearly one-fifth of itsworkers between 1998 and 2003.35

The industry’s loss of market share and production coincided with a steady decline in the value ofsales after 1999. The value of net sales was $58.1 million in 2003, down from $98.4 million in 1999. The industry’s profitability peaked in 2000, with operating income equal to only 3.2 percent of sales. The


37 CR at I-14, PR at I-12.

59

industry registered losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003, and in 2003 its operating losses were equivalent to 2.7percent of sales.36

The record suggests that the imposition of the orders was followed by some improvement in thedomestic industry. In recent years, the industry’s condition has deteriorated. Yet the industry’sperformance does not correlate with the behavior of subject imports from Indonesia. In the industry’sbest years, between 1998 and 2000, subject imports from Indonesia were increasing moderately or steadyand accounted for significant shares of apparent domestic consumption. In fact, the market share ofsubject imports from Indonesia was highest in 1999, the same year that market share for the domestic likeproduct also peaked. In the years since 2000, as the industry has turned downward, the volume of subjectimports from Indonesia turned downward. As the industry’s sales revenue turned downward, subjectimports from Indonesia frequently oversold the domestic like product, as in the original investigation. The channels of distribution for subject imports remained essentially unchanged, indicating that importsfrom Indonesia were not occupying new markets at the expense of the domestic like product. Yetsignificant portions of those subject imports were subject to little restraint from antidumping margins, asseveral exporters earned progressively lower margins through administrative reviews by the Departmentof Commerce.37

Nothing suggests that this will change upon revocation. The entire record, stretching back to thebeginning of the original investigation, suggests a fair degree of stability in the relationship betweensubject imports from Indonesia and the U.S. market. Given the continuity between the originalinvestigation period and the period after the order was imposed, revocation is not likely to have asignificant impact on that relationship. Subject import volume is not likely to increase significantly uponrevocation, and subject imports are not likely to change the long pattern of frequent overselling. Giventhe lack of significant volume of subject imports upon revocation, the lack of significant price effects, andthe lack of correlation between the condition of the industry and subject imports, I find it likely thatrevocation of the order will not have a significant impact on the domestic industry’s cash flow,inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, nor lead to a significant reduction in thedomestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or productivity. In light of these findings, Idetermine that revocation of the order on preserved mushrooms from Indonesia is not likely to lead to thecontinuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeabletime.

1 “Certain preserved mushrooms” are defined as preserved mushrooms of the species Agaricus bisporus andAgaricus bitorquis that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jars in asuitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter, or butter sauce. These mushrooms areimported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of the antidumping duty orders are“brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them forfurther processing. Also included in the scope of the antidumping duty orders are marinated, acidified, or pickledmushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

The preserved mushrooms included in the scope of the antidumping duty orders are provided for insubheadings 0711.51.00 and 2003.10.01 (statistical reporting numbers 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137,2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, and 2003.10.0153) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). The normal trade relations rate of duty for subheading 0711.51.00 is 5.7 cents per kilogram (drained weight) plus 8percent ad valorem. The normal trade relations rate of duty for subheading 2003.10.01 is 6 cents per kilogram(drained weight) plus 8.5 percent ad valorem.

The term “certain preserved mushrooms” does not include: (1) all other species of mushroom, includingstraw mushrooms (HTS statistical reporting number 2003.90.0010); (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms (HTSsubheading 0709.51.01), including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched” mushrooms; (3) dried mushrooms (HTSsubheading 0712.31.00); and (4) frozen mushrooms (HTS subheading 0710.80.20). 2 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement onadequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site. 3 The petition was filed by the Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade and its members, L.K. Bowman,Inc., Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc., Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.,Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp., Temple, PA; Mushroom Canning Co., Kennett Square, PA;Southwood Farms, Hockessin, DE.; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; and United Canning Corp., North Lima,OH. 4 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63FR 56613, October 22, 1998.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2003, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Actof 1930 (the Act), that it had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping dutyorders on certain preserved mushrooms1 from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would likely lead to thecontinuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective February 6, 2004, theCommission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Information relating to the background and schedule of the reviews is provided in the tabulation on thefollowing page.2

The Original Investigations

On January 6, 1998, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that anindustry in the United States was materially injured, or was threatened with material injury, by reason ofdumped imports of certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.3 On October19, 1998, Commerce made a final affirmative dumping determination with regard to imports from Chile.4

5 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 63FR 72246, December 31, 1998; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain PreservedMushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268, December 31, 1998; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Lessthan Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, December 31,1998, as amended by 64 FR 8308, February 19, 1999. 6 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile: Determination, 63 FR 66575, December 2, 1998; Notice ofAntidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, 63 FR 66529, December 2, 1998. 7 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia: Determinations, 64 FR 9178, February 24,1999; Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India, 64 FR 8311, February 19,1999; Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 64 FR 8310, February 19,1999; Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 64FR 8308, February 19, 1999. 8 In the original investigations, the Commission cited witness testimony stating that the decrease in U.S. apparentconsumption of certain preserved mushrooms from 1995 to 1997 was a function of “shifts in lifestyle” and a general

(continued...)

I-2

Effective date Action

December 2, 1998 Commerce’s antidumping duty order with respect to imports from Chile (63 FR66529, December 2, 1998)

February 19, 1999 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders with respect to imports from China, India,and Indonesia (64 FR 8308 (China), 64 FR 8311 (India), and 64 FR 8310(Indonesia), February 19, 1999)

February 1, 2002 Commerce’s partial revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect toIndonesia (68 FR 39521, July 2, 2003)

November 3, 2003 Commission’s institution of reviews (68 FR 62322, November 3, 2003)

February 6, 2004 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (69 FR 7793, February 19, 2004)

March 10, 2004 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews (69 FR 11384, March 10, 2004)

May 12, 2004 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (69 FR 28156, May 18, 2004)

September 9, 2004 Commission’s hearing1

October 18, 2004 Commission’s vote

October 28, 2004 Commission’s determinations to Commerce

1 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

On December 28, 1998, Commerce made affirmative dumping determinations with regard to importsfrom China, India, and Indonesia.5 The amended weighted-average dumping margins (in percent advalorem), as reported by Commerce, are presented in the tabulation on the following page.

With regard to imports from Chile, the Commission made its final affirmative injurydetermination on November 27, 1998 and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on December 2,1998.6 With regard to imports from China, India, and Indonesia, the Commission made its finalaffirmative injury determinations on February 11, 1999 and Commerce issued antidumping duty orderson February 19, 1999.7

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations and from these reviews.Figure I-1 shows U.S. imports of certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesiasince 1995.8

8 (...continued)shift in consumer tastes from preserved to fresh vegetables. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, USITC Pub.3144 at 16. A witness in these reviews indicated one reason preserved mushroom consumer demand declined in the1990's was because several large national pizza chains substituted certain preserved mushrooms with freshmushrooms in their operations. Hearing transcript (Mr. Newhard), p. 58.

I-3

Country and firmMargin

(percent)

Chile

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. 148.51

All others 148.51

China

China Processed Food I&E Co./Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. 121.47

Tak Fat Trading Co. 162.47

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 151.15

Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co. 142.11

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Group Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Putian Cannery Fujian Province 142.11

Xiamen Gulong Import and Export Co., Ltd. 142.11

General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou 142.11

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Shanghai Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Canned Goods Co. of Raoping 142.11

All others 198.63

India

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. 6.28

Ponds (India), Ltd. 14.91

Alpine Biotech, Ltd. 243.87

Mandeep Mushrooms, Ltd. 243.87

All others 11.30

Indonesia

PT Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa 7.94

PT Zeta Agro Corp. 22.84

All others 11.26

Table I-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1995-2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds drained weight, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound)Reported data

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,054 217,744 204,511 181,796 180,627 198,689 175,264 173,167 187,903 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 39.7 42.2 36.5 36.4 40.7 31.1 32.3 33.8 25.4 Importers' share (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 3.3 2.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 33.4 34.8 26.4 0.2 4.2 11.0 11.9 25.6 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.0 4.9 6.9 17.7 17.3 16.8 13.8 14.4 Indonesia (subject) . . . . . . . . 12.8 12.4 15.5 14.7 16.1 14.6 12.8 *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 51.1 57.9 51.6 34.0 36.1 40.7 *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject) . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 6.8 5.7 12.0 25.3 32.8 27.1 27.5 22.8 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.3 57.9 63.6 63.6 59.3 68.9 67.7 66.2 74.6

U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327,443 256,520 218,016 197,702 218,079 228,216 191,659 176,802 187,329 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 43.4 47.2 41.4 41.9 45.5 35.7 36.0 38.2 29.7 Importers' share (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 26.3 26.8 19.0 0.2 3.3 10.0 11.0 23.1 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.1 4.6 6.6 12.8 14.5 14.3 11.9 11.7 Indonesia (subject) . . . . . . . . 14.6 13.7 17.1 15.4 18.0 16.9 15.0 *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.3 45.3 51.3 44.9 31.0 34.7 39.3 *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject) . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 7.5 7.3 13.2 23.5 29.6 24.6 24.9 21.3 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.6 52.8 58.6 58.1 54.5 64.3 64.0 61.8 70.3

U.S. imports from: Chile: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,660 7,101 5,429 6,516 0 0 0 0 0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,661 7,990 6,252 7,683 0 0 0 0 0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.09 $1.13 $1.15 $1.18 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** 0 0 0 0 0 China: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,587 72,753 71,109 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,580 67,570 58,321 37,520 433 7,617 19,117 19,516 43,339 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.16 $0.93 $0.82 $0.78 $1.35 $0.91 $0.99 $0.95 $0.90 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** India: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,951 4,368 9,949 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,065 5,400 10,069 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442 21,051 21,997 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.36 $1.24 $1.01 $1.04 $0.87 $0.96 $0.93 $0.88 $0.81 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia (subject): Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,756 26,893 31,791 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417 *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,648 35,197 37,269 30,459 39,321 38,493 28,830 *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.55 $1.31 $1.17 $1.14 $1.35 $1.33 $1.29 *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,954 111,115 118,278 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,954 116,157 111,911 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389 *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.26 $1.05 $0.95 $0.95 $1.10 $1.10 $1.06 *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

I-4

Table I-1--ContinuedCertain preserved mushrooms: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1995-2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds drained weight, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound)Reported data

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

U.S. imports from: Indonesia (nonsubject): Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** Other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,826 14,763 11,590 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,476 19,279 15,826 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.40 $1.31 $1.37 $1.20 $1.12 $1.04 $1.00 $0.92 $0.93 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,780 125,878 129,868 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,430 135,436 127,737 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 109,220 131,607 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.28 $1.08 $0.98 $0.99 $1.11 $1.07 $1.03 $0.95 $0.94 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 214,973 223,735 203,523 280,405 285,300 287,728 271,155 270,042 200,044 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 107,711 84,936 74,711 66,186 67,849 68,932 53,316 50,733 50,161 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 50.1 38.0 36.7 23.6 23.8 24.0 19.7 18.8 25.1 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,274 91,865 74,642 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543 58,552 47,687 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,013 121,084 90,279 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031 67,582 55,722 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.49 $1.32 $1.21 $1.25 $1.35 $1.32 $1.22 $1.15 $1.17 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 1,214 1,409 *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,307 1,766 1,977 *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.54 $1.45 $1.40 *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 24,212 16,061 14,495 14,578 8,902 16,090 12,860 4,841 7,313 Inventories/total shipments (1) 25.2 17.3 19.1 *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 518 476 421 330 321 328 270 260 266 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 1,113 978 804 435 433 502 430 402 380 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 12,672 10,776 10,525 5,372 5,480 6,999 6,633 6,423 5,988 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.39 $11.02 $13.09 $12.35 $12.66 $13.94 $15.43 $15.98 $15.78 Productivity (pounds per hour) 96.8 86.8 92.9 125.6 140.0 133.8 124.0 126.2 132.2 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.12 $0.13 $0.14 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 $0.13 $0.12 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,840 90,551 76,052 68,133 71,437 64,639 57,251 59,943 49,724 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,110 122,323 94,012 81,714 98,393 87,008 70,610 69,463 58,139 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.56 $1.35 $1.24 $1.20 $1.38 $1.35 $1.23 $1.16 $1.17 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . 121,721 105,728 81,957 74,270 89,167 76,808 64,611 66,246 55,543 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 20,389 16,595 12,055 7,444 9,226 10,200 5,999 3,217 2,596 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 12,868 12,067 10,815 6,657 7,183 7,447 6,305 5,729 4,150 Operating income or (loss) . . . 7,521 4,528 1,240 787 2,043 2,753 (306) (2,512) (1,554) Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 3,076 761 1,023 1,215 1,235 1,539 1,353 907 2,706 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.34 $1.17 $1.08 $1.09 $1.25 $1.19 $1.13 $1.11 $1.12 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $0.14 $0.13 $0.14 $0.10 $0.10 $0.12 $0.11 $0.10 $0.08 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.08 $0.05 $0.02 $0.01 $0.03 $0.04 ($0.01) ($0.04) ($0.03) COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.7 86.4 87.2 90.9 90.6 88.3 91.5 95.4 95.5 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 3.7 1.3 1.0 2.1 3.2 (0.4) (3.6) (2.7)

(1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Imports from PT Zeta Agro are included in Indonesia (subject) for 1995-2001, and reported separately as Indonesia (nonsubject) for 2002 and 2003. (3) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal-year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar-year basis. Because of rounding,figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

I-5

I-6

Figure I-1Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, 1995-2003

* * * * * * *

Statutory Criteria and Organization of the Report

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no laterthan five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of aninvestigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as thecase may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuationor recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation ofan order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead tocontinuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. TheCommission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of thesubject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigationis terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, priceeffect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industrybefore the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted,

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry isrelated to the order or the suspension agreement,

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if theorder is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subjectmerchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, theCommission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subjectmerchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation isterminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in theUnited States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unusedproduction capacity in the exporting country,

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likelyincreases in inventories,

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of suchmerchandise into countries other than the United States, and

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities inthe foreign country, which can be used to produce the subjectmerchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

9 Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to imports from the Indonesian firm PT Zeta AgroCorp., effective February 1, 2002. Therefore, U.S. import statistics regarding Indonesia are adjusted for 2002 and2003 by removing U.S. imports originating from this firm as reported in information provided to the Commission byCustoms. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and FinalDetermination to Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 39521, July 2, 2003.

I-7

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subjectmerchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, theCommission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by importsof the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter theUnited States at prices that otherwise would have a significantdepressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports ofthe subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspendedinvestigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factorswhich are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity,

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development andproduction efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop aderivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the contextof the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affectedindustry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission mayconsider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. Ifa countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature ofthe countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of theSubsidies Agreement.”

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above factors ispresented throughout this report. A summary of data collected in the review is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of seven firms (see table I-2) that accounted forall known U.S. production of certain preserved mushrooms during the review period. U.S. import dataare based on official Commerce statistics.9 Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers ofcertain preserved mushrooms and producers of certain preserved mushrooms in Chile, China, India, andIndonesia to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty orders andthe likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D.

10 Commerce’s notice is presented in app. A. 11 69 FR 54635, September 9, 2004.

I-8

COMMERCE’S RESULTS OF EXPEDITED REVIEWS

On March 10, 2004, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certainpreserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would likely lead to the continuation orrecurrence of dumping.10 Commerce also made a duty absorption determination with respect to sales forwhich Gerber Food Yunan Co., Ltd. was the importer of record.11 The weighted-average dumpingmargins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, that would occur if the antidumping dutyorders were to be revoked, are presented in the following tabulation.

I-9

Country and firmMargin

(percent)

Chile

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. 148.51

Ravine Foods 148.51

All others 148.51

China

China Processed Food I&E Co./Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. 121.47

Tak Fat Trading Co. 162.47

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 151.15

Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co. 198.63

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Group Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Putian Cannery Fujian Province 142.11

Xiamen Gulong Import and Export Co., Ltd. 142.11

General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou 142.11

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Shanghai Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp. 142.11

Canned Goods Co. of Raoping 142.11

All others 198.63

India

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. 6.28

Ponds (India), Ltd. 14.91

Alpine Biotech, Ltd. 243.87

Mandeep Mushrooms, Ltd. 243.87

All others 11.30

Indonesia

P.T. Dieng Djaya/P.T. Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa 7.94

P.T. Zeta Agro Corp. 0.00 (revoked)

All others 11.26

I-10

COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

Chile

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certainpreserved mushrooms from Chile, as shown in the following tabulation:

Period of review Date results published Margins (percent)

December 1, 1999 toNovember 30, 2000

May 10, 2002 (67 FR 31769) Nature’s Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148.511

Ravine Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148.51 Chile-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148.51

1 Includes Chilean merchandise shipped by the Colombian firm, Compania Envasadora del Atlantico.

China

Commerce has conducted four administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certainpreserved mushrooms from China, as shown in the following tabulation:


May 7, 1998 toJanuary 31, 2000

August 17, 2000 (65 FR 50183) Mei Wei Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63Tak Fat Trading Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

August 5, 1998 toJanuary 31, 2000

July 6, 2001 (66 FR 35595) China Processed Food Import &Export Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00Gerber (Yunnan) Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.33Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . 47.80

February 1, 2000 toJanuary 31, 2001

August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51833) Gerber (Yunnan) Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00Shantou Hongda Industrial General . . 0.00Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . 0.00Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. . . . . 161.57


July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41304) Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. 0.00Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . 61.37Shantou Hongda Industrial General . . 122.07Gerber (Yunnan) Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou), Ltd. 198.63Guangxi Yulin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63


September 9, 2004 (69 FR54635)

China Processed Food Import &Export Co. and designated affiliates . . 3.92Guangxi Yulin Oriental Food Co., Ltd. 0.00Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. . . 66.50Shantou Hongda Industrial General . . 198.63Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. . . . . . 198.63Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou), Ltd. 42.90Primera Harvest (Xiangfan) Co. . . . . . 82.22China-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198.63

12 Commerce also issued a final determination in a changed-circumstances review in which it determined thatKICM (MADRAS), Ltd. was the successor-in-interest to Hindustan Lever, Ltd. for purposes of determiningantidumping duty liability. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of Changed-CircumstancesReview, 68 FR 6884, February 11, 2003.

I-11

India

Commerce has conducted four administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certainpreserved mushrooms from India,12 as shown in the following tabulation:



August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42507) Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.26Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 6.63Hindustan Lever, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29Techtran Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . . 66.24Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 26.44India-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.30


July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46172) Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 27.80Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.68Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . 66.24Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 0.00


July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41303) Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02Himalya International, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 0.08Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 34.66


August 20, 2004 (69 FR 51630) amended by September 14, 2004 (69 FR 55405)

Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . 33.47Dinesh Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . . 66.24Premier Mushroom Farms . . . . . . . . . 25.73Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd. . . . . . 66.24Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. . . . . . . . 9.35

13 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957, July 7, 2000. See part IV, p. 5, fn 6. 14 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 52409, August 29, 2000. On October 17, 2003, the Court of InternationalTrade, in Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 294 F.Supp.2d 1352 (CIT 2003), vacated Commerce’s scopedetermination with regard to “marinated or acidified” mushrooms. See also Notice of Decision of the Court ofInternational Trade: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 63066, November7, 2003. An appeal of the Court’s ruling is still pending.

I-12

Indonesia

Commerce has conducted three administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certainpreserved mushrooms from Indonesia, as shown in the following tabulation:



July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36754) PT Dieng Djaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.44PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa . . . . . . 0.44PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26


May 13, 2002 (67 FR 32014) PT Dieng Djaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.59PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa . . . . . . 0.59PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26


July 2, 2003 (67 FR 39521) PT Indo Evergreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30PT Zeta Agro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002

Indonesia-wide rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26

1 The period of review covered December 31, 1998 through January 31, 2000 for PT Dieng Djaya and PT SuryaJaya Abadi Perkasa. 2 Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to imports from PT Zeta Agro Corp., effectiveFebruary 1, 2002. It determined that PT Zeta Agro Corp. had not sold product at less than fair value for threeconsecutive administrative reviews. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia: Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 39521, July 2, 2003.

COMMERCE’S SCOPE RULINGS

Since the issue of the antidumping orders, Commerce has issued two scope rulings with regard tocertain preserved mushrooms. On July 13, 1999, Commerce determined that preserved mushroomsproduced in third countries from provisionally preserved mushrooms produced in Chile were within thescope of the antidumping orders.13 On June 19, 2000, Commerce determined that “marinated or acidifiedmushrooms with an acetic acid content under 0.5 percent” were within the scope of the antidumpingorders.14

15 Prior to January 1, 2002, the products subject to these investigations were covered by HTS subheadings andstatistical reporting numbers 0711.90.40, 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047,and 2003.10.0053. 16 Raw mushrooms were not within the scope of the original investigations. Certain Preserved Mushrooms fromChile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144, November 1998, pp. 4-5. 17 Antidumping Duty Petition, Volume I: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia,submitted on behalf of L.K. Bowman, Inc.; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.; MountLaurel Canning Corp.; Mushroom Canning Co.; Southwood Farms; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.; and United CanningCorp., received January 6, 1998, p. 12. 18 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144, November 1998,p. I-3. 19 U.S. mushroom growers reported sales of the 2003-04 Agaricus mushroom crop to be 701 million pounds forthe fresh market, or 83.1 percent of the yield, and 143 million pounds, or 16.9 percent, for the processing market. Mushrooms, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, August 16, 2004.

I-13

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Definition of the Subject Product

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders under review, as defined byCommerce, consists of certain preserved mushrooms of the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricusbitorquis that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jarsin a suitable liquid medium, including but not limited to water, brine, butter, or butter sauce. Thesemushrooms are imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of theantidumping duty orders are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solutionto provisionally preserve them for further processing. Also included in the scope of the antidumpingorders are marinated, acidified, or pickled mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

The preserved mushrooms included in the scope of these investigations are provided for insubheadings 0711.51.00 and 2003.10.01 (HTS statistical reporting numbers 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131,2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, and 2003.10.0153).15

The term “certain preserved mushrooms” does not include: (1) all other species of mushroom,including straw mushrooms (HTS statistical reporting number 2003.90.0010); (2) all fresh and chilledmushrooms (HTS subheading 0709.51.01), including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched” mushrooms; (3) dried mushrooms (HTS subheading 0712.31.00); and (4) frozen mushrooms (HTS subheading0710.80.20).

Physical Characteristics, Processing Operations, and End Uses

The imported and domestic products covered in these reviews are preserved16 mushrooms of theAgaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis (collectively “Agaricus”) species.17 Raw Agaricus mushroomsused to produce the subject preserved mushrooms are often white but may also include off-white (creamand brown) mushrooms.18 U.S. mushroom growers sell most of their mushrooms in the fresh market,whereas less than 20 percent annually of all Agaricus mushrooms grown in the United States are sold forprocessing.19 U.S. standards of identity for raw mushrooms intended for processing range from grade 1-A(white, closed veil, no blemishes) to grade 2-B (off-white, open veil, blemishes), with most canned stems

20 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144, November 1998,p. I-3. 21 Id. at pp. I-3-I-4. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Buttons are small whole mushrooms with the stems removed manually. Id. at p. I-3. 29 Id. U.S. producers reported that by volume, 81.9 percent of their 2003 U.S. shipments were of pieces andstems, 14.3 percent were sliced mushrooms, and the remaining 3.8 percent were whole mushrooms or other (e.g.,portobello) mushrooms. U.S. importers reported that 72.7 percent of their 2003 U.S. shipments were of pieces andstems, 23.0 percent were sliced mushrooms, and the remaining 4.3 percent were of whole mushrooms or otherportobello mushrooms.

I-14

and pieces made from grade 2 mushrooms and most canned whole and sliced mushrooms made fromgrade 1-B and sometimes grade 1-A mushrooms.20

The processing of mushrooms begins with the procurement of raw product. The largest, best-formed mushrooms are generally sold on the fresh market for prices higher than those for processing-grade mushrooms, resulting in medium to small, broken or blemished mushrooms being more readilyavailable for canning.21 Domestic industry sources have stated that in times of oversupply to the freshmarket, fresh-market-quality mushrooms that would otherwise be sold to a retailer or food-service buyerto be used in the fresh form might instead be diverted to a processor.22

In general, mushroom processing involves the cleaning, grading, sorting, sometimes slicing ordicing, blanching, packing in a liquid medium (including water, brine, and butter or butter sauce) inairtight containers, and heating or retorting (preserved by heat sterilization) in cans or jars.23 Due to theperishable nature of raw mushrooms, they are generally processed within 24 hours after harvest.24 Freshmushrooms for processing are prepared from raw mushrooms that have been cleaned, inspected, andweighed again to determine the net volume of the shipment. The mushrooms are then washed with plainwater and blanched (cooked) to an internal temperature of at least 180 degrees for 7-8 minutes. Theblanching process shrinks the mushrooms by about 40 percent as raw mushrooms consist of about 94-percent water and excess moisture is lost during this process. The mushrooms are then sliced (if desiredas sliced or as pieces or stems), de-watered, and put though a metal detector to check for extraneous metalmaterials.25 Finally, the mushrooms go through a volumetric filler machine, the net weight in the can orjar is checked, and the packing media (which may include such things as water, a light salt water solution,ascorbic acid, or other preservatives) is added into the can.26 The container is vacuum sealed with a metallid and the cans or jars are heated in a retort cooker until the contents reach commercial sterility. Theproduct is allowed to cool and the containers labeled, if appropriate, and packed in cardboard cartons orpalletized for shipment.27 Canned mushrooms generally have a shelf life of up to 3 years. Processedmushrooms are generally tan or gray in color, have a slightly salty taste, and a soft texture. Mushroomspacked in jars are usually in small container sizes ranging from 2.5 to 8 ounces. Mushrooms packed incans are packed predominantly in larger container sizes of 16 ounces and 68 ounces, but also are packedin 4- and 8-ounce cans.

Processed mushrooms are generally sold in three styles of pack: whole (including buttons),28

sliced, and diced or stems and pieces. Whole mushrooms are said to account for the smallest marketshare of canned-mushroom sales. Most of the U.S. market for canned mushrooms prefers stems andpieces, which especially predominate in the industrial and institutional/food-service market.29 The threemain types of purchasers of certain preserved mushrooms are industrial users, food-service customers,

30 Id. See Part II for a more detailed discussion on channels of distribution. 31 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Investigation No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144,November 1998, p. 4; Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-777-779(Final), USITC Pub. 3159, February 1999, p. 5. 32 Petitioners’ Response to Notice of Institution, December 23, 2003, p. 20. 33 Respondents’ Response to Notice of Institution, December 23, 2003, p. 19. In subsequent submissions,Indonesian respondents did not dispute petitioners’ proposed definition of the domestic like product. 34 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the subject importedproducts is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturingfacilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels ofdistribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. 35 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 3-16; Pillsbury’s prehearing brief, pp. 1-8; Indonesian prehearing brief, pp. 2-11; and Chinese prehearing brief, pp. 7-11.

I-15

and retailers.30 Industrial customers generally use canned mushrooms to produce other food products,such as brand-name and private-label soups and spaghetti sauces. These purchasers are described asgenerally buying large volumes of canned mushrooms in large containers. Food-service users, includingmajor pizza chains, other restaurants, and distributors for institutional applications, also purchase largequantities of large-volume containers. Finally, sales of mushrooms packed in jars and 4- and 8-ouncecans tend to be concentrated in retail outlets, including grocery stores, and distributors to such outlets,where the mushrooms are sold as both national brands and private-label products principally to individualcustomers for home consumption.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determinations, the Commission found the appropriate domestic like product to be“certain preserved mushrooms,” as defined above by Commerce.31 In response to a question solicitingcomments regarding the appropriate domestic like product in the Commission’s notice of institution ofthese reviews, the petitioners stated that they support the definition used by the Commission in theoriginal investigations.32 In their response, Indonesian respondents did not take a position on thedefinition of the domestic like product.33

This section presents information related to the Commission’s “domestic like product”determination.34 In the final phase of the original investigations, two domestic like product issues wereraised by respondents: (1) broadening the definition of the domestic like product (and the domesticindustry considered) to include fresh mushrooms; and (2) broadening the definition of the domestic likeproduct to include marinated, acidified, and pickled (“marinated”) mushrooms.35 In its finaldeterminations, the Commission declined to include fresh or marinated mushrooms and found the

36 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144, November 1998,pp. 3-6. With regard to fresh mushrooms, the Commission found that “preserved mushrooms have substantiallydifferent characteristics than fresh mushrooms in terms of appearance, flavor, and shelf life; that there are distinctchannels of distribution; that fresh and preserved mushrooms are produced using different production facilities,employees, and methods; that customers and producers perceive significant differences between fresh and preservedmushrooms; and that the prices for the products differ substantially.” Id. at 4.

With regard to marinated mushrooms, the Commission found that “although preserved mushrooms andmarinated mushrooms share some common channels of distribution and production facilities, they have differenttastes that limit marinated mushrooms’ end uses, very limited interchangeability, are perceived to be differentproducts by both producers and customers, and sell in different price ranges. We believe that the distinction betweenpreserved mushrooms and marinated mushrooms establish a ‘clear dividing line.’” Id. at 6. 37 Petitioner asserts that the proper domestic like product definition is certain preserved mushrooms as defined byCommerce. Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 4. Indonesian respondents take no position with regard to the definitionof the domestic like product or the domestic industry. Indonesian respondents’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 17. 38 Ron-Son Mushroom Products, Inc. (“Ron-Son”) reported that it ***. 39 Mount Laurel Canning Corp., United Canning Corp., and Southwood Farms were members of the originalpetitioning coalition but did not provide the Commission with questionnaire responses. In the originalinvestigations, United Canning Corp. accounted for *** percent of 1997 U.S. production of certain preservedmushrooms, Southwood Farms accounted for *** percent, and Mount Laurel Canning Corp. accounted for ***percent. Creekside Mushrooms, Ltd. (“Creekside”) reported that it ***. Southwood Farms ceased operations as ofDecember 31, 2002 (and ceased production of certain preserved mushrooms prior to this date). Petitioners’Response to Notice of Institution, December 23, 2003, p. 20. Mount Laurel Canning ***. U.S. producerquestionnaire response of ***. 40 Giorgio Foods and Creekside were not members of the original petitioning coalition, ***.

I-16

domestic like product to be certain preserved mushrooms.36 These issues have not been pursued by theparties during the course of these reviews.37

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The Commission sent producers’ questionnaires to eight firms identified as U.S. producers ofcertain preserved mushrooms. Seven firms provided the Commission with responses.38 Of the remainingmembers of the original petitioning Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade, L.K. Bowman, Inc.(“L.K. Bowman”); Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc. (“Modern Mushroom”); Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.(“Monterey Mushrooms”); Mushroom Canning Co. (“Mushroom Canning”); and Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.(“Sunny Dell”), provided the Commission with questionnaire responses.39 Giorgio Foods, Inc. (“GiorgioFoods”), ***, and Creekside also provided responses to the Commission’s questionnaire.40 Table I-2presents the list of U.S. producers with each company’s U.S. production location, share of U.S.production in 2003, and position on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders.

41 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the original investigations, along with firmsthat, based on a review of data provided by Customs, may have imported certain preserved mushrooms since 1998. 42 In addition, the Commission received responses from *** reporting that they did not import certain preservedmushrooms during 1998-2003 from any country.

I-17

Table I-2Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of U.S.production in 2003, and positions on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders

Firm Production location(s)

Share ofproduction(percent)

Position oncontinuation of

the orders1

Creekside2 Worthington, PANorth Lima, OH

*** ***

Giorgio Foods Temple, PA *** ***

L.K. Bowman3 Nottingham, PA *** Petitioner

Modern Mushroom4 Avondale, PA *** Petitioner

Monterey Mushrooms5 Ventura, CABonne Terre, MO

*** Petitioner

Mushroom Canning Cambridge, MD *** Petitioner

Sunny Dell Kennett Square, PA *** Petitioner

1 ***. 2 ***. 3 ***. 4 ***. 5 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 43 firms believed to be importers of certainpreserved mushrooms, as well as to all U.S. producers.41 Questionnaire responses containing data werereceived from 19 companies accounting for *** percent of the volume of subject U.S. imports of certainpreserved mushrooms in 2003 and 41.5 percent of all imports.42 Table I-3 presents the responding U.S.importers, their locations, and imports, by source, of certain preserved mushrooms in 2003.

Table I-3Certain preserved mushrooms: Reported subject U.S. imports, by importer and by source ofimports, 2003

* * * * * * *

I-18

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-4 presents apparent U.S. consumption for the review period and table I-5 presents U.S.market shares for the same period.

Table I-4Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparentU.S. consumption, 1998-2003

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds, drained weight)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543 58,552 47,687

U.S. imports from--

Chile 6,516 0 0 0 0 0

China 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139

India 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010

Indonesia (subject) 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417 *** ***

Subtotal 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 *** ***

Indonesia (nonsubject) (1) (1) (1) (1) *** ***

Other sources 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838

Total imports 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216

Apparent consumption 181,796 180,627 198,689 175,264 173,167 187,903

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031 67,582 55,722

U.S. imports from--

Chile 7,683 0 0 0 0 0

China 37,520 433 7,617 19,117 19,516 43,339

India 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442 21,051 21,997


Subtotal 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389 *** ***


Other sources 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809

Total imports 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 109,220 131,607


1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commercestatistics.

I-19

Table I-5Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. market shares, 1998-2003

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003



Value (1,000 dollars)


Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 36.4 40.7 31.1 32.3 33.8 25.4

U.S. imports from--

Chile 3.6 0 0 0 0 0

China 26.4 0.2 4.2 11.0 11.9 25.6

India 6.9 17.7 17.3 16.8 13.8 14.4

Indonesia (subject) 14.7 16.1 14.6 12.8 *** ***

Subtotal 51.6 34.0 36.1 40.7 *** ***


All other sources 12.0 25.3 32.8 27.1 27.5 22.8

Total imports 63.6 59.3 68.9 67.7 66.2 74.6

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 41.9 45.5 35.7 36.0 38.2 29.7

U.S. imports from--

Chile 3.9 0 0 0 0 0

China 19.0 0.2 3.3 10.0 11.0 23.1

India 6.6 12.8 14.5 14.3 11.9 11.7


Subtotal 44.9 31.0 34.7 39.3 *** ***



Total imports 58.1 54.5 64.3 64.0 61.8 70.3

1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commercestatistics.

1 Petitioners and respondents do not agree whether number 10 cans sold by retailers should be considered as partof the retail channel of trade. Petitioners report that this product is largely purchased by small businesses that use themushrooms for food products and these firms would otherwise purchase through the food service sector. Hearingtranscript (Mr. Kazemi), p. 22, and (Mr. Coursey), p. 232. The respondents report that it was the petitioners whorequested that these firms be included in the retail sector. Hearing transcript (Mr. Morgan), p. 235. 2 In response to a question whether buying U.S. product is an important factor in each firm’s purchases of certainpreserved mushrooms, all but one of the 19 responding firms reported that it was not. The one firm reporting “yes”reported that it purchased only U.S. product for its ***.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS

Certain preserved mushrooms are sold to industrial users, food service customers, and retailers. Industrial users such as frozen-food manufacturers purchase large quantities that they use in producingpackaged foods. Food service customers include restaurant and institutional customers as well asdistributors to such firms. Retail customers mainly consist of grocery stores or discount stores that alsosell groceries. Retail users purchase small containers: 4- and 8- ounce cans or jars or “number 10” cansthat contain 68 ounces drained weight of preserved mushrooms.1

Certain preserved mushrooms are sold as whole mushrooms, sliced mushrooms, or as stems andpieces. Whole mushrooms are mainly sold to retailers and are usually small, attractive, and of uniformsize. Sliced mushrooms also must be made of small, attractive, and uniform sized-mushrooms and mustshow a complete silhouette of the mushroom. Sliced and whole mushrooms may be sold in glass jars aswell as cans. Stems and pieces account for 75 percent of the entire U.S. market and 95 percent of sales tofood service and industrial customers. Stems and pieces are typically sold in cans, not in glass jars. Lower-quality mushrooms, such as broken or more mature mushrooms, are used for stems and pieces.

Subject imports comprised 44.9 percent of the value of the U.S. market in 1998, domesticproducers’ shipments comprised 41.9 percent, and nonsubject imports were 13.2 percent. In 2003,subject imports comprised *** percent of the value of the U.S. market, domestic shipments comprised29.7 percent, and nonsubject imports comprised *** percent.

Some U.S. producers sell not only certain preserved mushrooms but also produce and sell otherforms of mushrooms including packaged fresh whole or sliced mushrooms, frozen mushrooms, and/orchilled mushrooms, as well as products containing mushrooms. Domestic producers may also benefitfrom “Buy American” requirements or preferences that promote demand for their products, althoughpurchases subject to such requirements are a very small portion of the overall market.2

3 ***. 4 All but one of these firms answered the question on whether the purchasers were retailers, food service,industrial users, or distributors. Some firms misinterpreted this question; for this reason, staff interpreted theirresponse to this question using their answers to the question that asked for responses of distributors. If firmsanswered this question in a manner that indicated that they were distributors, they have been classified as distributorsin this analysis. ***.

II-2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Twenty-one purchasers3 responded to the purchaser questionnaire.4 Seven purchasers wereretailers, 13 were distributors, and one was no longer in business and did not provide the informationneeded to classify it. Information received to date indicates that retailers and distributors that sell toretailers tend to purchase the product from more than one country source, whereas the three reportingdistributors that sell mainly for food service use and to other distributors purchase the product from India(see appendix E). Not all importers reported information on channels of distribution; however, theresponses of those that did are reported in appendix F, which also provides Customs data on imports bysize of container. Product in the smaller containers would typically be sold in the retail channel whilelarger containers would typically be sold to food service and industrial users. According to Customs data,most Indonesian product is sold in smaller containers; most Indian product is sold in larger containers;and Chinese product shifts from year to year between being mainly in large and mainly in smallcontainers. In almost all instances, the answers by responding purchasers that were retailers and by thosethat were distributors were similar.

Geographic Markets

Six of the seven responding producers and 11 of the 18 responding importers reported shippingnationally. The remaining one producer and seven importers reported selling to one or more regions.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. certain preserved mushroom producersare likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate to small changes in shipments of U.S. producedcertain preserved mushrooms to the U.S. market. Factors contributing to the moderate to smallresponsiveness of supply are discussed below.

Industry capacity and inventory levels

High levels of excess capacity in canning facilities indicate that the industry can increaseproduction assuming that adequate supplies of fresh mushrooms are available for canning. Between 1998and 2003, reported capacity utilization rose slightly from 23.6 percent to 25.1 percent.

5 Hearing transcript (Mr. Newhard), pp. 62-63. 6 Hearing transcript (Mr. Kazemi), p. 66. 7 About a week or two of the year, good quality mushrooms go to the canneries, but these may go to producedifferent product than is typically produced (e.g., to marinated product). Hearing transcript (Mr. Kazami), p. 87. 8 Hearing transcript (Mr. Newhard), p. 82. 9 Hearing transcript (Mr. Kazemi), pp. 83-84. 10 Hearing transcript (Mr. Newhard), pp. 81-82. 11 Using the lower values, $0.35 + $0.70 for the minimum fresh price of $1.05, times 60 percent for the minimumshare of the fresh price necessary to increase production, results in $0.63 per pound as a minimum price. 12 The EU quotas are discussed in Part IV, p. 4 footnote 5.

II-3

The U.S. mushroom canning industry’s ability to increase output depends on the mushroomgrowers’ willingness to increase their production of mushrooms available for canning as well as thecanners’ ability to increase the amount they process. The petitioners reported that they pay less for freshmushrooms to be used in canning than they had before5 and thus it is not economically feasible formushroom growers to grow mushrooms specifically for the processing market.6 The fresh mushroomsused in canning are mainly second-grade mushrooms that could not be sold on the fresh market, and someare excess fresh mushrooms that cannot find a market as fresh.7 U.S. processors believe that freshmushroom growers would grow more mushrooms if they could get for mushrooms for canning 60 to 75percent of the price that they get in the fresh market.8 However, mushrooms for canning were reported asselling for about 35 cents per pound while bulk mushrooms for the fresh market sell for 70 to 95 centsmore.9 Petitioners believe that the low price paid for processing mushrooms has caused growers to bemore cautious to not over-produce, and if the price for processing mushrooms were higher, growerswould grow more mushrooms to ensure they had “the nicest, best, freshest mushrooms to serve theirindividual accounts for fresh.”10 Calculating from these estimates the price of fresh mushrooms forcanning would have to be at least 63 cents per pound in order to significantly increase the amount ofmushrooms available to the processors.11

U.S. producers of certain preserved mushrooms were asked if changes in demand for freshmushrooms had affected their supply of raw mushrooms. Five producers responded: one reported that ithad, but did not elaborate; one reported it had and that the growing demand for fresh mushrooms hadreduced the demand for certain preserved mushrooms somewhat; one reported that it had not, but that theincreased demand for fresh mushrooms had increased the supply of mushrooms available for canning; onereported that it had not, but stated that the supply of fresh mushrooms for the fresh market had increased;and one reported that the changing demand of fresh mushrooms had not affected its supply but the closingof one mushroom growing facility that resulted from the low price for mushrooms for processing hadreduced the fresh mushrooms available for canning.

Alternative markets

U.S. exports of certain preserved mushrooms are limited. *** of the seven responding U.S.producers exported, and a number of the non-exporting firms reported that such exports were not feasibleas a result of restrictive quotas, lack of sales force, shipping costs, exchange rate problems, or lowprices.12 Domestic producers’ exports rose between 1998 and 2003 but remained at *** of their totalshipments of certain preserved mushrooms. The *** level of exports during the period might indicate

13 Hearing transcript (Mr. Shelton), pp. 68-69. 14 Petitioners report that Chilean product has been transshipped into the United States from Canada andColombia. 15 Some importers reported that Chinese producers were able to increase production more quickly than Indian orIndonesian producers. One reported that in China, mushroom growing was a cottage industry, while in India,Indonesia, and Chile, mushrooms were grown in a corporate manner. Because Chinese mushroom growing was acottage industry it did not require the investment in infrastructure to increase the amount of mushrooms grown andcanned and as a result, some importers believed that China could increase production more rapidly than the othersubject countries.

II-4

that domestic producers find it difficult to shift shipments between the U.S. and other markets because ofquotas or other difficulties or that U.S. shipments face stiff competition in foreign markets.

Inventory levels

Moderate-to-large inventories relative to total shipments indicates that U.S. producers are able torespond to changes in demand with relatively large changes in the quantity shipped. Inventories fell from*** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments in 1998 to *** percent in 2003.

Production alternatives

Most of the equipment used to produce certain preserved mushrooms cannot easily be convertedto produce other mushroom products or other canned products. Different mushroom products are usuallyproduced on different lines; however, the equipment used in cleaning, sorting, and blanching may be usedin common, and chilled mushrooms are sliced using equipment similar to that used for cannedmushrooms. The equipment for putting mushrooms in cans or jars and sealing, sterilizing, labeling, andpacking these cans and jars is typically used only for canning, although two producers reported producingproducts other than certain preserved mushrooms using mushroom canning lines. Mr. Shelton of L.K.Bowman estimated that adding a canning line for smaller cans would cost around $300,000.13

Subject Imports

Based on available information, subject imports of certain preserved mushrooms are likely torespond to changes in demand with relatively large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is increased by moderate capacity utilization rates; however, it is limited by low-to-moderate inventories and the fact that the United States is already purchasing the majority of reportedproduction by the subject-country producers. This analysis covers only Indonesian and Indian product,since the Commission received no foreign producers’ questionnaires from Chile or China. Chileanproduct is shipped to other countries but not shipped to the United States.14 Chinese product is shippedinto the United States and other countries.15

Industry capacity

Reported Indian capacity *** between 1998 to 2003 from *** million pounds in 1998 to ***million pounds in 2003. Capacity utilization rates fell *** from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in

II-5

2003; however, year-to-year variations in capacity utilization were greater, with capacity utilization risingto as high as *** percent in 1999 and falling to as low as *** percent in 2001. Capacity of subjectIndonesian producers fell from *** million pounds in 1998 to *** million pounds in 2003. SubjectIndonesian capacity utilization rates fell irregularly from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 2003, withcapacity utilization rates peaking in 1999 at *** percent and reaching their lowest point in 2003 at ***percent. The moderate capacity utilization rates, the high year-to-year variation in capacity utilizationrates in India and Indonesia, and the *** overall growth in Indian capacity (which was *** reduction insubject Indonesian capacity and caused their combined capacity to increase ***), reflect an ability toincrease production of certain preserved mushrooms in the event of a price change.

Alternative markets

The Indian and Indonesian foreign producers agreed that it would be difficult to shift between theU.S. market and other markets; however, this was mainly because the U.S. market was so large relative toall other markets. Only four U.S. importers reported that they knew about markets other than the U.S.market; three of these reported that U.S. prices were higher than in other countries, and the fourthreported that other markets had different specifications than the U.S. market and that the EU imposedquotas on imports of preserved mushrooms. The United States was reported to be by far the largestmarket for certain preserved mushrooms in the world and this fact limited the ability to shift from othermarkets to the United States; thus, there would be relatively little product now sold to other countries thatwould be available to sell in the United States. *** reported that the U.S. market purchased different-sized containers than they sold in other markets, and that the U.S. market purchased more stems andpieces and more product in glass jars than their other markets. The home markets in both India andIndonesia are small, with commercial home consumption ranging from *** percent to *** percent of totalshipments in India and from *** to *** percent in Indonesia. According to the Indonesian producers,Indonesian consumption has increased with the growth of pizza chains in Indonesia. They also reportedfacing little foreign competition in Indonesia. The Indian producers reported that there was *** marketfor the product in India. Most shipments from India and Indonesia were to the United States, rangingfrom a low of *** percent in 2002 to a high of *** percent of total shipments in 2003 for Indonesia andfrom a low of *** percent in 2002 for India to a high of *** percent in 2001. These data indicate thatforeign producers in Indonesia and India can divert some shipments to or from alternative markets inresponse to changes in the price of certain preserved mushrooms; this is limited, however, by the largeshares of their shipments that already go to the United States.

Inventory levels

Foreign producers’ inventory levels vary from year to year, especially in India. Between 1998and 2003, inventories as a share of total shipments for Indian product ranged from *** percent in 1998 to*** percent in 2002, ending at *** percent in 2003. Inventories as a share of total shipments for subjectIndonesian product ranged from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003. These data indicate thatforeign producers’ ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of certain preservedmushrooms to the U.S. market differs from year to year. The inventory levels in 2003 indicate someability to increase sales to the U.S. market out of inventories at the end of 2003.

16 The top four nonsubject countries for imports of certain preserved mushrooms between 1998 and 2003 in termsof volume were the Netherlands, Mexico, Taiwan, and France. Imports from Malaysia have also risen rapidly duringthe period of review. 17 From official Commerce statistics. 18 Hearing transcript (Mr. Kazemi), p. 59.

II-6

Production alternatives

Only one of the seven responding foreign producers reported that it can produce other productson the same equipment used in the production of certain preserved mushrooms. This firm reported that ithad ***. None of the foreign producers reported that they could shift production from other products tothe production of canned mushrooms.

Nonsubject Imports

There are a large number of nonsubject sources for certain preserved mushrooms. Over theperiod from 1998 to 2003 these sources have been able to shift significant amounts of product to and fromthe United States and these nonsubject sources may be able to do so again in the future.

Other sources of imports of certain preserved mushrooms reported by purchasers include France,Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Taiwan.16 Effective February 1, 2002, Commerce revoked theantidumping order concerning PT Zeta Agro of Indonesia, causing this firm to shift from being a subjectproducer to being a nonsubject producer.

Nonsubject-country imports rose from 21.8 million pounds in 1998 to 65.1 million pounds in2000 and then fell to 47.5 million pounds in 2001 and 2002 before falling to 42.8 million pounds in 2003. The largest source of nonsubject-country imports during the period was the Netherlands. Imports fromthe Netherlands increased from 4.5 million pounds in 1998 to 28.3 million pounds in 2000 before fallingto 12.5 million pounds in 2003. Imports from Mexico were the next largest in 2003; they peaked at 7.2million pounds in 1998 and were 4.8 million pounds in 2003. The next largest nonsubject supplier,Taiwan, increased its exports to the United States from 2.7 million pounds in 1998 to 10.4 million poundsin 2000 after which its exports fell to 4.3 million pounds in 2003.17

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

U.S. demand for certain preserved mushrooms depends on the level of demand for downstreamfood products using certain preserved mushrooms as an ingredient. This is dependent on the decisions byproducers of these downstream products whether to use certain preserved mushrooms or other forms ofmushrooms, and the perceptions of consumers as to whether they prefer products made from fresh orprocessed ingredients. Certain preserved mushrooms are typically used as an ingredient in foodsincluding pizza toppings, spaghetti sauces, other sauces and gravies, casseroles, stews, and soups, ratherthan being served as a dish by themselves. The petitioners report that demand is growing at about the rateof population.18

19 General Mills was testified that it was also an industrial user. Its volume of certain preserved mushrooms forits own industrial use had fallen, replaced with either frozen mushrooms or the mushrooms were eliminated as aningredient in the product. Hearing transcript (Mr. Larson), pp. 147 and 178. 20 The other reported that the cost of inputs had increased at around the rate of inflation but did not explain howthis caused demand to fall. 21 All seven responding retailers reported no substitutes for certain preserved mushrooms.

II-7

None of the responding purchasers reported using certain preserved mushrooms as an ingredientin further-processed food products.19 All 18 responding purchasers reported that the end uses of certainpreserved mushrooms did not change between 1998 and 2003 and that they did not expect them to changein the future. When asked if demand had changed since 1998, three purchasers reported that demand hadincreased; one firm reported that it had decreased; and eight firms reported that demand was unchanged. The reasons purchasers reported for increased demand were promotions and cross merchandising(reported by one firm); quality and consistency being better for imported product (reported by a secondfirm); and increases in the number of *** locations. The purchaser reporting falling demand stated thatconsumer preference for fresh mushrooms reduced demand for certain preserved mushrooms. Seven of15 importers reported that demand had not changed between 1998 and 2003, and 10 of 14 did not expectit to change in the future. Four importers explained why demand changed; two reported why demand hadchanged for their firm, and two firms reported that demand had decreased because use of freshmushrooms had taken demand from certain preserved mushrooms. Five of the six U.S. producersreported that demand for certain preserved mushrooms has fallen over the period since 1998, with onereporting that demand was unchanged. Only two producers reported why demand had fallen; one of thesereported that imports had reduced demand and the other reported that fresh mushrooms had replacedimported certain preserved mushrooms.20 Four of the six responding producers reported that they did notexpect future demand changes, and the other two expected demand to continue to decline.

Substitute Products

Substitutes for certain preserved mushrooms mainly include other forms of mushrooms. Theflavor of mushroom is unique and certain preserved mushrooms are typically used as an ingredient infoods. Mushroom purchasers choose between fresh, preserved, and to a lesser extent frozen and driedmushrooms. Commercial purchasers have additional choices of chilled mushrooms. Each of these typeshas advantages and disadvantages.

Fifteen of the 19 responding purchasers,21 five of seven producers, and nine of 17 respondingimporters reported that there are no substitutes for certain preserved mushrooms. All four purchasers,both producers, and all eight importers that reported substitutes for certain preserved mushrooms reportedthat fresh mushrooms were a substitute; other substitutes reported included dry, blanched, frozen, andstraw mushrooms.

Cost Share

Price changes for certain preserved mushrooms at the retail level will likely have only a smalleffect on consumption because certain preserved mushrooms are a small share of purchasers’ foodexpenditures. However, if the price of certain preserved mushrooms rises, some retail purchasers may

II-8

substitute them with fresh or other forms of mushrooms. Such a substitution, though it might take moretime, might also occur for mushrooms used in food service or food processing.

The cost of using certain preserved mushrooms was largely unknown by the responding firms. Although certain preserved mushrooms are used in a variety of different types of food products, none ofthe purchasers that used such mushrooms in their food products answered the purchaser questionnaire. One purchaser and one U.S. producer estimated the cost share of mushrooms in other food products, withthe purchaser reporting less than 1 percent and the U.S. producer reporting 15 percent. Assuming thatcertain preserved mushrooms make up a relatively small share of the cost of most food items, changes inthe price of certain preserved mushrooms would have relatively little effect on the production costs ofthese foods and thus little effect on demand for foods containing certain preserved mushrooms.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in decidingfrom whom to purchase certain preserved mushrooms (table II-1). Ten of the 19 responding firmsreported that quality was the most important factor; the most commonly cited second-most-importantfactors were price and quality (both reported by six firms each); price was also the most-commonly cited

Table II-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported bypurchasers

Factor First Second Third

Quality1 10 6 2

Price 5 6 8

Availability 2 3 3

Reliability2 1 1 3

Delivery time2 1 1 1

Service 0 1 1

Other3 0 2 1 1 Quality includes factors such as: consistent product quality, quality exceeds industry standards, and quality andsafety are the minimum standard and so do not drive the purchase decision. 2 One firm that reported at both reliability and delivery time as the second most important factor has beenincluded in both reliability and delivery time. 3 Other includes: for the second factor, consistency of supply and food safety certificate with audit trails; for thethird factor, extension of credit.


22 None of the seven retailers reported price as the most important factor; however, five reported quality as mostimportant. All seven retailers reported that price was either the second or third most important factor. 23 None of the purchasers reported for the Chilean product.

II-9

third most important factor according to eight firms.22 Other factors reported by more than one firm wereavailability, reliability, delivery time, and service.

Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of certain preserved mushrooms. Factors mentioned included: color, size, flavor, shape cut, percentage of silhouettes, consistency, brine,can or jar cap quality, uniformity of product, texture, technical support, packaging, and quality meets orexceeds quality specifications.

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest pricedcertain preserved mushrooms. One purchaser reported always purchasing the lowest priced product; nineusually purchased the lowest priced product; ten sometimes purchased the lowest priced product; and nopurchaser reported that it never purchased the lowest priced product. Reasons reported for not purchasingthe least expensive certain preserved mushrooms included the reliability of the supplier, quality of theproduct, the consistency of quality, and availability. Purchasers were also asked if they purchased certainpreserved mushrooms from one source although a comparable product was available at a lower price fromanother source. Fifteen purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from a source thatmight be more expensive. Reasons provided included: reliability of supply, availability, delivery time,relationship, quality, purchase only from approved sources, “consistency of the Chinese product is betterthan that from other countries,” and “purchase only from one source.”

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 22 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II-2). All 20 responding purchasers rated availability as very important; 19 reported that quality meetingindustry standards was very important; 17 reported that reliability of supply was very important; 15reported that product flavor and product smell were very important; and 14 reported that delivery timeand product color were very important.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 22 factors (table II-3).23

For the U.S. product compared to the Chinese product, the most frequently reported difference in thefactors (reported by five of the seven responding purchasers) was that the U.S. product was superior to theChinese product in delivery time, while the Chinese product was reported to be superior to the U.S.product for lowest price (reported by five of seven responding purchasers) and discounts offered (reportedby four of the seven responding firms). Three firms compared U.S. and Indian product; two of thesereported that U.S. producers provided better delivery times, delivery terms, and technical support. Tworeported that the Indian product was superior with regard to discounts and lowest price. Five purchaserscompared the U.S. and subject Indonesian product; three of these reported that the U.S. product wassuperior in terms of delivery time, while three reported that the subject Indonesian product was superiorin discounts offered and lowest price. Four firms compared Chinese and Indian product; two of thesereported that the Chinese product was superior in product color, consistency of quality amongmanufacturers, quality meeting industry standards, and quality exceeding industry standards. Fivepurchasers compared Chinese and subject Indonesian product, with most of these firms reporting thatChinese and subject Indonesian product were comparable for all 22 factors. Three firms compared U.S.and nonsubject product; all three reported that the U.S. product was superior in delivery time, while tworeported that the U.S. product was superior with regard to product availability and delivery terms and tworeported that the nonsubject product was superior in terms of lowest price. Subject and nonsubject

II-10

Table II-2Certain preserved mushrooms: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Product availability 20 0 0

Delivery terms 9 11 0

Delivery time 14 5 0

Discounts offered 9 8 3

Extension of credit 3 10 7

Lowest price 12 8 0

Minimum quantityrequirements 4 10 5

Packaging 9 10 1

Mushroom piece size 12 7 0

Product color 14 6 0

Percentage of silhouettes 8 10 1

Product flavor 15 5 0

Product smell 15 5 0

Variation in piece size 11 9 0

Container/case size 11 9 0

Consistency of quality amongmanufacturers in country 7 7 6

Quality meets industrystandards 19 1 0

Quality exceeds industrystandards 7 11 1

Product range 2 12 5

Reliability of supply 17 3 0

Technical support/service 7 12 1

U.S. transportation costs 8 7 4

Note: Not all purchasers responded for each factor.


II-11

Table II-3Certain preserved mushrooms: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported bypurchasers

Factor

U.S. vsChina U.S. vs India

U.S. vsIndonesia

China vsIndia

China vsIndonesia

S C I S C I S C I S C I S C I


Product availability 1 4 2 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 4 0 0 4 1

Delivery terms 3 3 1 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 4 0 1 4 0

Delivery time 5 2 0 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 4 0 0 5 0

Discounts offered 1 2 4 1 0 2 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 5 0

Extension of credit 0 6 1 1 2 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 1 3 0

Lowest price 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 5 0

Minimum quantity requirements 2 4 1 1 2 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0

Packaging 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 5 0

Mushroom piece size 1 3 3 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 5 0

Product color 0 5 2 0 3 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 4 1

Percentage of silhouettes 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 5 0

Product flavor 1 5 1 1 2 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 4 1

Product smell 1 5 1 1 2 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 4 1

Variation in piece size 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 3 0 0 5 0

Container/case size 1 7 0 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0

Consistency of quality amongmanufacturers in country 2 4 0 0 3 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 4 1

Quality meets industry standards 0 5 2 0 3 0 0 4 1 2 2 0 0 5 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 4 1

Product range 0 6 1 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0

Reliability of supply 0 6 1 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 3 1 1 4 0

Technical support/service 2 5 0 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0

U.S. transportation costs 2 3 1 0 3 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 5 0

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product isinferior.

Note.–Not all companies gave responses for all factors.

Table continued.

II-12

Table II-3--ContinuedCertain preserved mushrooms: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported bypurchasers

Factor

U.S. vsnonsubject

China vsnonsubject1

India vsnonsubject

Indonesia vsnonsubject

S C I S C I S C I S C I


Product availability 2 1 0 0 5 2 0 3 0 0 2 1

Delivery terms 2 1 0 1 4 2 0 3 0 0 2 1

Delivery time 3 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 1 0 1 2

Discounts offered 0 2 1 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Extension of credit 0 3 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 1

Lowest price 0 1 2 4 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Packaging 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Mushroom piece size 0 2 1 1 5 0 1 1 1 0 3 0

Product color 0 2 1 2 4 1 1 0 2 1 2 0

Percentage of silhouettes 0 2 1 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 1

Product flavor 0 3 0 1 3 3 1 0 2 0 2 1

Product smell 0 3 0 1 3 2 0 1 2 0 2 1

Variation in piece size 0 2 1 1 6 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Container/case size 0 3 0 1 6 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Consistency of quality amongmanufacturers in country 0 3 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 0 3 0

Quality meets industry standards 0 3 0 1 6 0 1 1 1 0 3 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 1 1 1 5 1 0 2 1 0 3 0

Product range 1 2 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Reliability of supply 1 2 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

Technical support/service 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 3 0

U.S. transportation costs 1 2 0 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 3 0

1 One firm compared Chinese product with product from PT Zeta Agro. This information has been included in the nonsubjectdata.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product isinferior.

Note.–Not all companies gave responses for all factors.


24 The other reported requiring certification or prequalification for some of its product but it did not report thepercentage that required certification. All seven responding retailers required some certification, with five requiringit for all product or all product in 2003; one retailer did not report what share required certification, and one requiredit for half its purchases. 25 The two firms reporting times of 3 months have been included in the 3-months-or-less group rather than in the3-months-or-longer group. 26 One of these however, reported that it had increased its purchases from nonsubject countries because of theorders. 27 The questions asked if the purchasers had discontinued/reduced their purchases from any of the subjectcountries; however, all three responding firms listed only China and Indonesia, or just China.

II-13

imported product were generally considered comparable, with the majority of responding purchasersindicating that the Chinese and Indian products are superior in lowest price; that the Indian product isinferior in product color, product flavor, and product smell; and that Indonesian product is inferior indelivery time.

Purchasers were asked if certain grades, types, or sizes of certain preserved mushrooms wereavailable from a single source. Sixteen of the 17 responding purchasers reported that they were not. Thepurchaser that reported certain grades, types or sizes were available from a single source did not give anyfurther information on this.

Purchasers were asked if they required certification or prequalification for certain preservedmushrooms. Fifteen of the 20 responding purchasers required certification/prequalification. Of the 15,11 required it for all their purchases, two required it for all their purchases in 2003, and one required it for50 percent of its purchases in 2003.24 Thirteen purchasers reported on their certification/qualificationprocess; many of these reported a number of requirements, including factory audits by either thepurchaser or a third party, lab analysis, periodic sampling, and miscellaneous third-party (such as FDA)inspections, registrations, and approvals.

Nineteen purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factorsconsidered included the reliability of the supplier, size of the supplier, the quality of the product,consistency of the quality, results from factory audit, service, price, integrity, consistency of color, odor, texture of product, product safety requirements, price stability, commitment, and relationship with thesupplier. The time required to qualify a new supplier was reported by eleven purchasers and ranged fromone week to a year. Five firms reported times of 3 months25 or less; three reported time of 3 months ormore; one reported the time ranging from 2 to 8 months; and one reported time from 2 to 4 months.

Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approvedstatus. Only three of the 19 responding firms reported that suppliers had failed to qualify. One of thesefirms reported failure to qualify by all Indian firms except ***; one reported failure by a U.S. producerand various Chinese producers; and the other did not report which firms had failed to qualify/lost theirapproval.

Purchasers were asked a number of questions about whether their purchasing patterns for certainpreserved mushrooms from subject and nonsubject sources had changed since 1998. Thirteen of the 21responding purchasers reported that they had purchased certain preserved mushrooms from subjectcountries before 1998; six of these reported no change in purchases from subject countries,26 threereduced or stopped purchasing from China or Indonesia as a result of the antidumping duty orders;27 and

28 One of these firms reported shifting from China in 2001-02 because Chinese prices were too high (this firmalso reported increasing nonsubject purchases because of the order) and one of these firms reported shifting fromimporting mushrooms from China to purchasing Chinese mushrooms in the United States. 29 One additional firm reported that it did not purchase nonsubject product before or after the order; however, itpurchased product from the Netherlands and so was not included in the group that did not purchase nonsubjectproduct.

II-14

four changed their purchase patterns for reasons other than the antidumping duty orders.28 When askedabout purchases from nonsubject countries, seven purchasers reported that they did not purchase fromnonsubject countries before or after the orders;29 seven reported that their purchases from nonsubjectcountries were essentially unchanged; three increased their purchases from nonsubject countries becauseof the orders; and three increased their purchases from nonsubject countries for reasons other than theorders.

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchased from specificproducers and from specific countries. A number purchased only from approved suppliers and thuspurchased based on the producer. Choices based on countries tended to be due to quality or relationships.

Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser decides based on producer........................... 5 3 8 4

Purchaser’s customer decides based on producer......... 1 3 8 7

Purchaser decides based on country............................. 4 4 10 1

Purchaser’s customer decides based on country........... 1 2 9 7

Nine of the 17 responding purchasers contacted two to three suppliers before making a purchase,with three firms contacting only one supplier, and five contacting three or more suppliers. Mostpurchasers, 11 of the 17 responding, reported that they had not changed suppliers in the last five years.

Lead Times

Lead times for the U.S. producers ranged from 7 to 28 days regardless of whether sales were frominventory or produced to order. All four U.S. producers reporting specific lead times from bothinventories and from production to order reported the same lead time for both types of sale. Fourproducers sold most product from inventories, while two sold most product made-to-order. Importersreported lead times that ranged from 5 to 98 days. Importers’ lead times from inventories had a similarrange to those of U.S. producers. Eight of the 11 responding importers reported delivery times frominventories of 15 days or less, with the remainder reporting inventory lead times of 3 to 12 weeks. Incontrast, the most common times reported for sales produced to order were from 2 to 3 months, reportedby 11 of the 14 responding importers. Nine importers sold most of their product from inventories, whilefour sold most produced-to-order.

30 In addition, one firm did not make the comparisons requested in the table but reported that product was notinterchangeable between countries and it purchased only from Indonesia.

II-15

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Purchasers were asked to report how frequently certain preserved mushrooms from differentcountries were used in the same applications (table II-4). If purchasers reported that products fromdifferent countries were not always used in the same application, they were asked to explain why. Tworeported reasons for differences. One firm reported that interchangeability depends on the variety andquality of the finished product and another stated that it would only purchase non-Chinese product ifChinese product were not available.30

Producers and importers were asked to report how frequently certain preserved mushrooms fromdifferent countries were used in the same applications (tables II-5 and II-6). Only one of the producers Table II-4Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability ofproducts produced in the United States and other countries

Country

Chile China India Indonesia Nonsubject

A F S N A F S N A F S N A F S N A F S N

United States 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 0 4 3 0 0 6 3 1 0 7 3 0 0

Chile -- -- -- -- 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 0

China -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 5 0 0 7 3 1 0 4 3 0 0

India -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 3 1 0 3 3 1 0

Indonesia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 3 1 0

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-5Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of productproduced in the United States and other countries

Country



United States 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

Chile -- -- -- -- 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

China -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

India -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

Indonesia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 1 0 0



31 Hearing transcript (Mr. Larson), pp. 148-151. 32 The purchaser did not explain why product from the Netherlands was preferred.

II-16

Table II-6Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. importers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of productproduced in the United States and other countries

Country



United States 3 1 1 0 5 3 0 2 4 4 1 1 4 3 2 1 3 1 1 1

Chile -- -- -- -- 3 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 0

China -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 3 2 0 5 4 2 0 4 2 2 0

India -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 3 2 0 4 1 1 0

Indonesia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 2 1 0



elaborated on its response to this question, reporting that, for example, *** buys both domestic andimported products for the same private label. Three importers reported on differences between products. One reported that it had found U.S. product to be lower in quality than most imports; one reported that theChinese product was better in quality than those of most other countries; and one reported dealing only inChinese and Indonesian product. Importer General Mills reported that the product it purchases inIndonesia is typically a “fancy” product and for this reason, it is more expensive to produce than thetypical product from China and India. Importer General Mills had purchased product in both India andChina but no longer purchased from either of these countries, and reported that it could not get theconsistency of quality it wanted in product from China.31

Purchasers were asked if they or their customers ever specifically requested certain preservedmushrooms from one country over other possible sources. Five of the 19 responding purchasers reportedthat they or their customers did sometimes order certain preserved mushrooms from specific countries. One each reported a preference for product from France and the Netherlands;32 one preferred productfrom ***, an Indian company; one reported a preference for Indonesian firms; and one preferred Chineseproduct. The firm purchasing from France reported that this product had a distinct quality. Products fromChina and India were reported to be preferred for consistent quality. The firm preferring Indonesianproduct reported that its only approved packers were in Indonesia. Only one of the 17 respondingpurchasers reported that certain types of certain preserved mushrooms were available from only a singlesource, but it did not elaborate.

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price weresignificant in sales of certain preserved mushrooms from the United States, subject countries, ornonsubject countries. Producers’ and importers’ answers are summarized in tables II-7 and II-8. Producers and importers were asked to report what these differences were; however, none of theproducers responded. Three of the importers elaborated. One reported that U.S. producers’ quality waslower than that of imports; one reported there were differences in variability of piece size, color and

II-17

Table II-7Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ perceived importance of factors other than pricein sales of product produced in the United States and other countries

Country



United States 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4

Chile -- -- -- -- 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4

China -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4

India -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4

Indonesia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 2 4



Table II-8Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price insales of product produced in the United States and other countries

Country



United States 0 1 0 4 0 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 2 2 4 0 1 2 2

Chile -- -- -- -- 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2

China -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 5 4 1 1 4 5 1 0 2 3

India -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 4 5 0 0 2 3

Indonesia -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 4 2



flavor; and one reported that product from China, Malaysia, and Taiwan provided better size, color, andtexture.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in theirprehearing briefs; however, no party made any comments.

33 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market. 34 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subjectimports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switchfrom the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-18

U.S. Supply Elasticity33

The domestic supply elasticity for certain preserved mushrooms measures the sensitivity of thequantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of certain preserved mushrooms. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, theease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products,the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced certain preserved mushrooms. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has a moderate ability toincrease or decrease shipments into the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 3 to 6 is suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for certain preserved mushrooms measures the sensitivity of theoverall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of certain preserved mushrooms. Thisestimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viabilityof substitute products, as well as the component share of the certain preserved mushrooms in theproduction of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand forcertain preserved mushrooms is likely to be in a range of -0.4 to -0.9. Purchasers would not likely bevery sensitive to changes in the price of certain preserved mushrooms and would continue to demandfairly constant quantities over a considerably wide range of prices.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between thedomestic and imported products.34 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality(e.g., color, size, odor, etc.) and conditions of sale. Based on available information, the elasticity ofsubstitution between domestic and subject product is likely to be moderately elastic and in the range of 2to 4.

1 ***.Industry-wide, U.S. mushroom growers reported sales of the 2003-04 Agaricus mushroom crop to be 701

million pounds for the fresh market, or 83.1 percent of the yield, and 143 million pounds, or 16.9 percent, for theprocessing market. Mushrooms, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S.Department of Agriculture, August 16, 2004. 2 A number of possible causes for the U.S. industry’s low capacity utilization rate are as follows: (1) ***; (2)***; and (3) L.K. Bowman testified that it slowed production after it lost a large purchaser to a foreign competitor. See Verification Report and Changes to the Prehearing Report, INV-BB-111, p. 6. Hearing transcript (Mr. Shelton),p. 114. 3 Although not reporting any change in operations during the review period, *** stated that in the future it ***. U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***. 4 U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***. 5 U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***. 6 U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***. ***.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in tableIII-1. Reported U.S. capacity of certain preserved mushrooms decreased from 1998 to 2003 by 28.7percent and production decreased by 24.2 percent.1 Capacity utilization rates ranged from 18.8 percent in2002 to 25.1 percent in 2003.2

Table III-1Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization,1998-2003

ItemCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Capacity (1,000 lbs. drained weight) 280,405 285,300 287,728 271,155 270,042 200,044

Production (1,000 lbs. drained weight) 66,186 67,849 68,932 53,316 50,733 50,161

Capacity utilization (percent) 23.6 23.8 24.0 19.7 18.8 25.1


Four of seven U.S. producers, ***, reported that there was some change in their certain preservedmushroom operations during the period reviewed.3 ***.4 ***.5 *** also reported that its total productionincreased in 1999 and 2000, immediately after the antidumping duty orders were issued, but subsequentlydecreased in 2001 through 2003 as U.S. imports from China increased. ***. Therefore, *** ceasedproduction of certain preserved mushrooms in 2000 and became a U.S. distributor of the product.6 Mushroom Canning reported a ***-percent increase in capacity from 1998 to 1999. It stated that duringthe period of review, it relocated its production facility from Kennett Square, PA to Cambridge, MD and***. Mushroom Canning stated that its relocation was necessitated by otherwise needed renovations toan original facility built in 1903 and water allotment difficulties with the municipality of Kennett Square,

7 Hearing transcript (Mr. Newhard), pp. 24-25.

III-2

PA which would have required curtailed production.7 Five of the seven U.S. producers reported that they do not produce other products using the same

manufacturing equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce certain preservedmushrooms. *** reported that from 1998 to 2003 it produced *** mushrooms and *** reported that itproduced *** mushrooms using the same manufacturing equipment and/or production related employees.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS,AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As shown in table III-2, the quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased by 28 percentfrom 1998 to 2003. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments also decreased, by 32.8 percent, duringthis period, as did the average unit value of such shipments, by 6.6 percent. One U.S. producer, ***,reported export shipments ***.

III-3

Table III-2Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 1998-2003

ItemCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


Commercial shipments 65,380 72,505 61,257 56,543 58,552 47,687

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543 58,552 47,687

Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

Commercial shipments 81,817 97,966 80,775 69,031 67,582 55,722



U.S. shipments 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031 67,582 55,722


Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound)

Commercial shipments $1.25 $1.35 $1.32 $1.22 $1.15 $1.17



U.S. shipments 1.25 1.35 1.32 1.22 1.15 1.17


Average *** *** *** *** *** ***

1 Not applicable.


8 In their notice of institution, Indonesian respondents maintain that Giorgio Foods should be excluded from theU.S. industry as a related party. Respondents’ Response to Notice of Institution, December 23, 2003, p. 19. Respondents did not take a position with regard to ***. Indonesian respondents did not discuss related parties issuesin their briefs or hearing testimony. 9 ***.

III-4

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of certain preserved mushrooms for the review period arepresented in table III-3.

Table III-3Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 1998-2003

ItemCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Inventories (1,000 pounds, drained weight) 14,578 8,902 16,090 12,860 4,841 7,313

Ratio to production (percent) 22.0 13.1 23.3 24.1 9.5 14.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 22.0 12.1 26.1 22.7 8.3 15.3

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note: Ratios are calculated from firms providing both inventory and production/shipments information.


U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

Three U.S. producers, ***,8 either directly imported or purchased imports of the subject productduring the review period.9 Table III-4 presents data on the imports and purchases of imports of certainpreserved mushrooms by U.S. producers.

Table III-4Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ subject imports and purchases of subject imports,by source, 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (PRWs)engaged in the production of certain preserved mushrooms and the total hours worked by and wages paidto such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these reviews are presented in table III-5. From 1998 to 2003, the number of PRWs decreased by 19.4 percent, hours worked decreased by 12.8percent, and hourly wages increased by 2.5 percent. Productivity increased by 5.2 percent during thereview period.

III-5

Table III-5Certain preserved mushrooms: Average number of production and related workers, hoursworked, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs,1998-2003

ItemCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

PRWs (number) 330 321 328 270 260 266

Hours worked (1,000) 435 433 502 430 402 380

Wages paid ($1,000) 5,372 5,480 6,999 6,633 6,423 5,988

Hourly wages $12.35 $12.66 $13.94 $15.43 $15.98 $15.78

Productivity (pounds per hour) 125.6 140.0 133.8 124.0 126.2 132.2

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 $0.13 $0.12


10 U.S. producers and their fiscal year ends are ***.

III-6

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

Background

Seven U.S. producers10 provided financial data on their operations on certain preservedmushrooms. These producers accounted for all known U.S. production of these mushrooms in 2003.

U.S. producers reported several developments relating to plant openings and closings. Creeksidestarted production of certain preserved mushrooms by purchasing Sno*Top’s plant from United CanningCorp. on April 28, 2003. Giorgio Foods closed its Myers production facility in 2003; all productionequipment has been moved or sold and the facility is being leased to other companies and is being usedfor warehousing. *** mentioned that three domestic producers–Southwood, United Canning, and MountLaurel Canning–have closed their production facilities since December 2, 1998. Modern Mushroomclosed its cannery operation in July 2000.

Financial data were gathered only on the producers’ actual processing operations (cleaning,sorting, blanching, and canning), not their growing operations. Several producers (***) are or wereintegrated at least to some extent, meaning that they grow a portion of the fresh mushrooms needed fortheir processing operations or purchase a portion from related growers; they may also purchase a portionfrom unrelated growers. Processors that are not integrated must purchase all of their fresh mushroomrequirements from unrelated growers. Since financial data on growers and growing operations were notgathered and are not publicly available, those data are not presented.

The questionnaire data of one producer, ***, were verified. Based upon verification findings,***. *** verification adjustments were incorporated in this report.

Operations on Certain Preserved Mushrooms

Income-and-loss data for the U.S. producers on their certain preserved mushrooms operations arepresented in table III-6, per-pound data are shown in table III-7, and components of cost of goods sold arepresented in table III-8. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table III-9. To summarize, netsales values and profitability both initially increased and then decreased over time. The change in netsales values was the result of increasing and then decreasing net sales quantities and sales average unitvalues (AUVs), while the swing in profitability was the result of unit costs increasing at a slower rate thansales AUVs and then decreasing at a slower rate than sales AUVs.

The aggregate operating income margin improved from 1.0 percent in 1998 to 3.2 percent in2000, and then turned steadily negative: operating loss margins were 0.4 percent in 2001, 3.6 percent in2002, and 2.7 percent in 2003. In 2003, three out of six firms reported operating losses, compared withtwo out of five firms in 2001 and 2002.

The volume of total net sales declined irregularly by about 27 percent from 1998 to 2003. Thevolume of total net sales increased by about 5 percent from 1998 to 1999, decreased by about 10 percentin 2000, declined by 11 percent in 2001, increased by 5 percent in 2002, and then dropped by 17 percentin 2003. From 1998 to 1999, on a per-pound basis, the total of average cost of goods sold (COGS) andselling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses rose less than the increase in the average sellingprice, resulting in the producers’ improved operating income. In 2000, such costs and expenses combineddeclined more than the decrease in the average selling price, resulting in a slightly improved operatingincome; in 2001 and 2002, COGS declined less than the decline in the average selling price, resulting inoperating losses; and, in 2003, the average selling price increased slightly whereas COGS increased andSG&A expenses fell, resulting in a slightly lower operating loss.

III-7

With regard to the individual components of COGS, raw materials (mushrooms) accounted for 56to 61 percent of the total cost of goods sold whereas other factory costs accounted for 33 to 36 percent

Table III-6Results of operations of U.S. producers in the production of certain preserved mushrooms, fiscalyears 1998-2003

ItemFiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds drained weight)

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** *** ***


Total net sales 68,133 71,437 64,639 57,251 59,943 49,724

Value ($1,000)

Commercial sales *** *** *** *** *** ***


Total net sales 81,714 98,393 87,008 70,610 69,463 58,139

Cost of goods sold 74,270 89,167 76,808 64,611 66,246 55,543

Gross profit 7,444 9,226 10,200 5,999 3,217 2,596

SG&A expenses 6,657 7,183 7,447 6,305 5,729 4,150

Operating income or (loss) 787 2,043 2,753 (306) (2,512) (1,554)

Interest expense 1,031 718 861 508 174 93

Other expense 81 167 573 190 140 311

Other income items 139 83 74 226 91 3

Dumping and subsidy funds received 0 0 0 209 1,861 1,274

Net income or (loss) (186) 1,241 1,393 (569) (874) (681)

Depreciation/amortization 1,086 651 1,219 1,084 997 992

Cash flow 900 1,892 2,612 515 123 311

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Cost of goods sold 90.9 90.6 88.3 91.5 95.4 95.5

Gross profit 9.1 9.4 11.7 8.5 4.6 4.5

SG&A expenses 8.1 7.3 8.6 8.9 8.2 7.1

Operating income or (loss) 1.0 2.1 3.2 (0.4) (3.6) (2.7)

Net income or (loss) (0.2) 1.3 1.6 (0.8) (1.3) (1.2)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 1 1 2 2 2 3

Data 6 6 6 5 5 6

1 ***. 2 ***.


III-8

Table III-7Results of operations (per pound) of U.S. producers in the production of certain preservedmushrooms, fiscal years 1998-2003

ItemFiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


Net sales $1.20 $1.38 $1.35 $1.23 $1.16 $1.17

Cost of goods sold 1.09 1.25 1.19 1.13 1.11 1.12

Gross profit 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.10 0.05 0.05

SG&A expenses 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08

Operating income or (loss) 0.01 0.03 0.04 (0.01) (0.04) (0.03)

Net income or (loss) (0.003) 0.02 0.02 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)


during the period for which data were collected. All responding firms except *** purchased freshmushrooms on the open market for use as raw materials. *** used part of the mushrooms grown by theirfirms for processing whereas all fresh mushrooms used by *** as raw material were grown by ***. Thetotal unit cost of goods sold increased irregularly from 1998 to 2000, particularly because of increasingcosts of raw mushrooms and other factory costs. The total unit cost of goods sold then declined becauseof declining raw mushroom costs.

Table III-9 presents selected financial data on a company-by-company basis, and illustrates someof the similarities and differences among the producers. The industry trends were generally driven by***, which is ***, accounting for *** percent of total sales volume and *** percent of total net salesvalue in 2003.

III-9

Table III-8Components of cost of goods sold of U.S. producers in the production of certain preservedmushrooms, fiscal years 1998-2003

ItemFiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Value ($1,000)

Raw materials:

Mushrooms:

Grown by the firms 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Purchased by the firms *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 45,094 54,217 45,665 36,404 38,083 32,334

Direct labor 4,541 4,526 5,195 4,825 4,547 3,897

Other factory costs 24,635 30,424 25,948 23,382 23,616 19,312

Total cost of goods sold 74,270 89,167 76,808 64,611 66,246 55,543

Share of cost of goods sold (percent)Raw materials:

Mushrooms:

Grown by the firms 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***


Total 60.7 60.8 59.5 56.3 57.5 58.2

Direct labor 6.1 5.1 6.8 7.5 6.9 7.0

Other factory costs 33.2 34.1 33.8 36.2 35.6 34.8

Total cost of goods sold 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Raw materials:

Mushrooms:

Grown by the firms 1 $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***


Total 0.66 0.76 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.65

Direct labor 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Other factory costs 0.36 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.39

Total cost of goods sold 1.09 1.25 1.19 1.13 1.11 1.12

1 ***.


11 Chairman Koplan asked a question to Mr. Kazemi, president of Monterey Mushrooms, “Indonesian respondentsseem to be arguing that domestic production of processed mushrooms is simply a residual byproduct of freshmushrooms. What I am wondering, Mr. Kazemi, is are you able to offset at least in part losses that you incur withregard to preserved mushrooms with gains from your sales of fresh mushrooms as an integrated company?” Mr.Kazemi replied that “There is a fundamental flaw in that supposition. It assumes that you are making money on thefresh side of the business, which may or may not happen. There are a lot of fresh companies that are going bankrupt. So we treat our businesses as stand alone businesses, fresh mushrooms. If we don’t make money in the processedarea, we are going to shut down that segment, or vice versa. So they are independent, and we don’t try to balancethe two because we are losing money here, and we are making money on the fresh side.” Hearing transcript, pp. 93-94. 12 ***. 13 ***. 14 ***. 15 ***. 16 Id. 17 ***.

III-10

Table III-9Results of operations of U.S. producers in the production of certain preserved mushrooms, byfirms, fiscal years 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

***11 also produce fresh mushrooms and sell the majority of those mushrooms as freshmushrooms. Creekside reported *** volume in 2003 when it started its operations. Giorgio Foodsreported *** in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Modern Mushroom *** in 2000 when it closed its canneryoperation. Monterey Mushrooms reported ***. L.K. Bowman, Mushroom Canning, and Sunny Dell, ***Mushroom Canning *** in 2003.

With respect to its ***, Giorgio Foods stated that: ***.12

L.K. Bowman reported declining profitability during the period of investigation. With respect toits declining operating income in 2003, L.K. Bowman indicated that: ***.13

With respect to its declining profitability from 1998 to 2000, Modern Mushroom stated that“***.”14

With respect to reasons for its ***, *** indicated that: ***.15

With respect to its declining labor costs since 2001, Monterey Mushrooms indicated that: ***.16

With respect to the ***, Mushroom Canning stated that: ***.17

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ net sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms, and of costs and volume on their total expenses, is presented in table III-10. The analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table. The information for this variance analysis isderived from table III-6. There was no internal consumption, and transfers to related firms accounted forless than *** percent of total net sales by volume during the period of investigation. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, andvolume. This analysis is more effective when the product involved is a homogeneous product with novariation in product mix. The analysis shows that the decrease in operating income from 1998 to 2003 isprimarily attributable to the much higher unfavorable price variance (lower selling prices), but is alsoattributable to a lesser degree to the unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit costs) and netvolume variance (lower volume).

III-11

Table III-10U.S. producers’ variance analysis on their operations producing certain preserved mushrooms,fiscal years 1998-2003

ItemFiscal years

1998-03 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Value ($1,000)

Commercial sales:

Price variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Volume variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Commercial sales variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms:

Price variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Volume variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Transfer variance *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total net sales:

Price variance (1,497) 12,716 (2,022) (6,453) (4,467) 518

Volume variance (22,078) 3,963 (9,363) (9,945) 3,320 (11,842)

Total net sales variance (23,575) 16,679 (11,385) (16,398) (1,147) (11,324)

Cost of sales:

Cost variance (1,340) (11,295) 3,874 3,418 1,403 (591)

Volume variance 20,067 (3,602) 8,485 8,779 (3,038) 11,294

Total cost variance 18,727 (14,897) 12,359 12,197 (1,635) 10,703

Gross profit variance (4,848) 1,782 974 (4,201) (2,782) (621)

SG&A expenses:

Expense variance 708 (203) (948) 291 872 602

Volume variance 1,799 (323) 684 851 (296) 977

Total SG&A variance 2,507 (526) (264) 1,142 576 1,579

Operating income variance (2,341) 1,256 710 (3,059) (2,206) 958

Summarized as:

Price variance (1,497) 12,716 (2,022) (6,453) (4,467) 518

Net cost/expense variance (632) (11,499) 2,926 3,709 2,276 12

Net volume variance (213) 38 (194) (315) (14) 428

Note: Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.


III-12

Investment in Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development(R&D) expenses on their certain preserved mushrooms operations are shown in table III-11. None of thefirms reported any R&D expenses. ***.

Table III-11Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers of certainpreserved mushrooms, fiscal years 1998-2003

ItemFiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures 1,215 1,235 1,539 1,353 907 2,706

R&D expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0


Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,and sale of certain preserved mushrooms to compute return on investment (ROI). Although ROI can becomputed in many different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore,ROI is calculated as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, andsale of certain preserved mushrooms.

Data on the U.S. certain preserved mushrooms producers’ total assets and their ROI are presentedin table III-12. The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sales of certain preservedmushrooms declined from 1998 to 2003.

With respect to negative cash and equivalents, *** indicated that: ***.With respect to negative cash and equivalents, *** indicated that: ***.The ROI improved from 2.1 percent in 1998 to about 7.0 percent in 1999 and 2000, and then

turned negative and decreased irregularly from a negative 0.9 percent in 2001 to a negative 6.3 percent in2003. The trend of ROI was the same as the trend of the operating income margin to net sales in table III-6 during the reporting period.

In order to put the foregoing data into some historical perspective, table III-13 computes the ROIfor NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code 311421, based upon data contained inthe Risk Management Association’s (RMA) Annual Statement Studies. Exact comparisons between thequestionnaire data and RMA data are not recommended due to several reasons.

RMA defines NAICS code 311421 as “(t)his U.S. industry comprises establishments primarilyengaged in manufacturing canned, pickled, and brined fruits and vegetables.” This code includesStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 2033 and 2035. RMA started reporting data on NAICScode 311421 for April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. Data for earlier periods are reported on SIC code 2033only. Thus, whereas the questionnaire data strictly relate to certain preserved mushrooms, the RMA datainclude data on the broad range of fruit and vegetable canning and hence, may not be comparable.

III-13

Table III-12Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers in the production of certain preservedmushrooms, fiscal years 1998-2003

ItemFiscal year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Value ($1,000)

Value of assets:

Current assets:

Cash and equivalents 195 573 100 (100) (75) 154

Accounts receivable, net 7,742 5,755 7,294 5,443 6,281 5,176

Inventories1 23,511 15,793 24,100 22,136 9,140 9,951

Short-term investments 13 15 16 14 15 9

Prepaid expenses 141 99 238 134 98 189

Total current assets 31,602 22,235 31,748 27,627 15,459 15,479

Notes receivable 620 526 1,035 0 0 0

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 14,729 15,804 17,307 17,562 17,462 19,676

Less: Accumulated depreciation

8,809 9,443 10,602 11,262 10,738 10,523

Book value 5,920 6,361 6,705 6,300 6,724 9,153

Other non-current assets 166 150 134 118 102 87

Total assets 38,308 29,272 39,622 34,045 22,285 24,719

Operating income or (loss) 787 2,043 2,753 (306) (2,512) (1,554)

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 2.1 7.0 6.9 (0.9) (11.3) (6.3)

1 Ending inventories of Giorgio Foods, L.K. Bowman, Monterey Mushrooms, and Mushroom Canning declined in2002 and 2003.


III-14

Table III-13Risk Management Association data on the number of firms and their sales, assets, operatingincome margins, and return on investment (ROI) on operations for NAICS 311421 (fruit andvegetable canning) for 15 one-year periods ending March 31, 1989 to March 31, 2003

Period Number ofcompanies

Sales value($1,000)

Asset value($1,000)

Operatingmargin

(percent)

ROI1(percent)

4/1/88 - 3/31/89 65 1,586,161 869,936 5.9 10.8

4/1/89 - 3/31/90 68 2,241,271 1,205,260 6.0 11.2

4/1/90 - 3/31/91 90 4,118,211 2,120,801 5.5 10.7

4/1/91 - 3/31/92 85 4,303,987 2,223,196 5.2 10.1

4/1/92 - 3/31/93 76 4,480,469 2,341,532 4.8 9.2

4/1/93 - 3/31/94 84 3,988,196 2,456,803 4.4 7.1

4/1/94 - 3/31/95 97 4,580,491 2,620,682 5.1 8.9

4/1/95 - 3/31/96 103 6,258,942 3,526,188 5.5 9.8

4/1/96 - 3/31/97 89 5,021,281 2,605,286 5.3 10.2

4/1/97 - 3/31/98 111 5,584,750 3,377,959 5.8 9.6

4/1/98 - 3/31/99 87 4,220,912 2,581,184 2.5 4.1

4/1/99 - 3/31/00 90 5,549,120 3,087,185 5.0 9.0

4/1/00 - 3/31/01 69 5,021,362 3,214,604 4.6 7.2

4/1/01 - 3/31/02 61 4,408,263 2,727,747 5.4 8.7

4/1/02 - 3/31/03 69 5,705,201 3,467,093 5.0 8.2

1 ROI was calculated using RMA data.

Source: © “2004” by RMA- The Risk Management Association. All rights reserved. No part of thistable may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writingfrom RMA- The Risk Management Association. Please refer to www.rmahq.org for further warranty,copyright and use of data information.

The questionnaire data for 2003 represent data of only six companies with $58.1 million in salesand $24.7 million in assets whereas the RMA data for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2003consist of data from 69 companies with $5.7 billion in sales and $3.5 billion in assets. Thus, thequestionnaire data represent about 1 percent of the RMA data.

Finally, since we are not privy to the names of companies that provided data to RMA, we do notknow whether any of the domestic producers provided data to RMA. Thus, our questionnaire data may not be a subset of the RMA data at all. Therefore, while the historical RMA data might prove useful toput the certain preserved mushrooms data into some historical context, they cannot be used to make absolute comparisons.

1 Subject and nonsubject import data for Indonesia are derived from data compiled by Commerce, as adjusted bycompany-specific Customs data, with U.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro presented as nonsubject imports for 2002 and2003. The antidumping duty order with regard to PT Zeta Agro was revoked effective February 1, 2002. Using dataobtained from Customs, estimated U.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro increased during the period of review with ***pounds in 1999, *** pounds in 2000, *** pounds in 2001, *** pounds in 2002, and *** pounds in 2003.

Prior to January 1, 2002, the products subject to these reviews were covered by HTS subheadings andstatistical reporting numbers 0711.90.40, 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047,and 2003.10.0053. Currently, certain preserved mushrooms are provided for in subheadings 0711.51.00 and2003.10.01 (statistical reporting numbers 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147,and 2003.10.0153) of the HTS. 2 According to Commerce data, U.S. imports from nonsubject countries included the following countries, in orderof total volume from 1998 to 2003: (1) the Netherlands, (2) Mexico, (3) Taiwan, (4) France, and (5) Canada. Thesecountries accounted for approximately 80 percent of the U.S. imports from nonsubject countries during the period ofreview. U.S. imports from the Netherlands increased from 4.5 million pounds in 1998 to 12.5 million pounds in2003 and accounted for approximately 38 percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries during the period ofreview. U.S. imports from France increased from 24,000 pounds in 1998 to 2.8 million pounds in 2003. AppendixC, table C-2 presents U.S. import data by nonsubject country for the period of review. 3 These U.S. importers are: ***.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Data regarding U.S. imports of certain preserved mushrooms, as reported by Commerce,1 arepresented in table IV-1. As shown, U.S. imports from subject countries cumulatively have fluctuatedduring the period of review, with U.S. import volume in 2003 being *** percent lower than in 1998. U.S.imports from Chile were nonexistent after 1998. U.S. imports from China decreased dramatically from1998 to 1999, but then increased from 1999 to 2003, more than doubling from 2002 to 2003 to return to1998 import volume levels. U.S. imports from India also fluctuated during the review period, butincreased overall from 1998 import volume levels. Subject U.S. imports from Indonesia increased from1998 to 1999, remained virtually unchanged from 1999 to 2000, decreased from 2000 to 2001, anddecreased further in 2002 and 2003 after the revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to PTZeta Agro. U.S. imports from nonsubject countries approximately doubled from 1998 to 2003.2

Ten of the 19 reporting U.S. importers stated that they have arranged for the importation ofcertain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, or Indonesia subsequent to January 1, 2004.3

IV-2

Table IV-1Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by sources, 1998-2003

SourceCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


Chile 6,516 0 0 0 0 0

China 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139

India 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010


Subtotal 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 *** ***


All other sources 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838

Total 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216

Value ($1,000)2

Chile 7,683 0 0 0 0 0

China 37,520 433 7,617 19,117 19,516 43,339

India 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442 21,051 21,997


Subtotal 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389 *** ***


All other sources 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809

Total 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 109,220 131,607

Unit value (per pound, drained weight)

Chile $1.18 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

China 0.78 $1.35 $0.91 $0.99 $0.95 $0.90

India 1.04 0.87 0.96 0.93 0.88 0.81


Average 0.95 1.10 1.10 1.06 *** ***



Average 0.99 1.11 1.07 1.03 0.95 0.94


IV-3

Table IV-1--ContinuedCertain preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by sources, 1998-2003

SourceCalendar year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Share of quantity (percent)

Chile 5.6 0 0 0 0 0

China 41.6 0.3 6.1 16.3 18.0 34.3

India 10.9 29.9 25.1 24.8 20.8 19.3


Subtotal 81.1 57.4 52.4 60.0 *** ***



Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Chile 6.7 0 0 0 0 0

China 32.7 0.4 5.2 15.6 17.9 32.9

India 11.3 23.5 22.5 22.4 19.3 16.7


Subtotal 77.2 56.9 53.9 61.5 *** ***



Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

Chile 9.8 0 0 0 0 0

China 72.6 0.5 12.1 36.3 40.6 96.0

India 19.0 47.2 50.0 55.3 47.1 53.8


Subtotal 141.7 90.6 104.2 133.7 *** ***



Total 174.7 157.9 198.7 222.7 225.9 279.5

1 Not applicable. 2 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from adjusted Commerce statistics. U.S. imports from Indonesia for 2002 and 2003 were adjusted to removeU.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro from subject U.S. imports from Indonesia. U.S. imports from PT Zeta Agro were compiled usinginformation provided by Customs. These imports are reported under Indonesia (nonsubject).

4 Petitioners’ response to notice of institution, December 23, 2003, p. 8; petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 2 andexh. 2. According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, Nature’s Farm had a capacityof *** pounds from 1995 through June 1998, production ranging from *** pounds in 1997 to *** pounds in 1995,and exported over *** percent of its shipments to the United States. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia, Staff Report, January 20, 1999, INV-W-005, p.VII-4. 5 U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***, p. 5. Imports of certain preserved mushrooms into the EU aresubject to a tariff-rate quota system that commenced in 1995. Imports from Chile do not have a country-specificquota and would fall under the “other” countries annual quota limit of 3,290 metric tons (7.253 million pounds). TheEU quota system sets forth the following country-specific annual limits: (1) Bulgaria, 1,750 metric tons (3.858million pounds); (2) Romania, 500 metric tons (1.102 million pounds); (3) China, 22,750 metric tons (50.155 millionpounds); “other” countries, 3,290 metric tons (7.253 million pounds); and “reserved,” 1,000 metric tons (2.204million pounds). The out-of-quota tariff rate is 18.4 percent plus 191 Euros per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds) forHTS subheading 2003.1020 and 18.4 percent plus 222 Euros per 100 kilograms for HTS subheading 2003.1030. Commission Regulation 2858/2000, December 27, 2000 amending the 1995 regulation 2125/95 which imposed thequota system. 6 Nature’s Farm was allegedly attempting to transship subject product through Canada and Colombia tocircumvent the antidumping duty order. See Petitioners’ Response to Notice of Institution, December 23, 2003, p. 7;Petitioners’ posthearing brief, pp. 14-15. In order to counteract any circumvention issues, on July 13, 1999,Commerce determined that preserved mushrooms produced in third countries from provisionally preservedmushrooms produced in Chile were within the scope of the antidumping duty orders. Notice of Scope Rulings, 65FR 41957, July 7, 2000.

IV-4

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

End-of-period inventories reported by U.S. importers are shown in table IV-2.

Table IV-2Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source,1998-2003

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CHILE

The Commission requested data from the sole producer of certain preserved mushrooms in Chile,Nature’s Farm Products (Chile), S.A. (“Nature’s Farm”), which according to the Commission’s originalinvestigation accounted for 100 percent of Chile’s exports to the United States. Nature’s Farm did notprovide the Commission with a response. Petitioners claim that Nature’s Farm is still in operation asInversiones Bosques Del Mauco and operating at the same level of production capacity as during theCommission’s original investigations, and has shifted its product mix from the larger cans of certainpreserved mushrooms to 4 oz. to 8 oz. retail-sized cans.4 *** also states that Nature’s Farm is stillproducing certain preserved mushrooms and is currently shipping to ***.5

After the imposition of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile,U.S. imports from Chile ceased in 1999 through 2003.6 Figure IV-1 provides data obtained from theUnited Nations regarding exports of “canned mushrooms” from Chile to all countries combined. Asshown, exports of canned mushrooms from Chile decreased dramatically after the imposition of theantidumping order on Chile in 1998 and increased moderately from 2000 to 2002.

7 These producers are: (1) China Processed Food Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (2) Dalian Mishima Foods, Co.,Ltd.; (3) Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (4) Fujian Putian Canned FoodsGroup Corp.; (5) General Canned Food Factory of Zhangzhou; (6) Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.; (7) JiangsuCereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (8) Shanghai Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; (9) ShenzhenCofry, Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs, Co., Ltd.; (10) Tak Fat Trading Co.; (11) Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co.,Ltd.; and (12) Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Co., Ltd. 8 Petitioners claimed that from February 2000 to January 2003, U.S. imports from “new shippers” in Chinaaccounted for 65 percent or 34 million pounds of certain preserved mushrooms from China. Petitioners noted thatU.S. Customs is attempting to rectify an apparent problem with “new shippers” of agricultural products in China thatallegedly presents opportunities to evade the remedial effects of the antidumping duty order. Petitioners’posthearing brief, Responses to Commission Questions, pp. 16-17 & exhibits 7-12.

According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in China had a(continued...)

IV-5

Figure IV-1Exports of canned mushrooms from Chile, 1995-2002

Source: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division,http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade.asp.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 12 producers of certain preserved mushrooms in China,none of which provided the Commission with a response.7 Petitioners claim that capacity in China toproduce certain preserved mushrooms has increased since the time of the Commission’s originalinvestigations as evidenced by the completion of nine new shipper reviews by Commerce since theimposition of the antidumping order.8 *** concurs and claims that there are between 20 and 30 additional

8 (...continued)capacity ranging from 140 million pounds in 1995 to 184 million pounds in 1996, production ranging from 99million pounds in 1997 to 152 million pounds in 1996, and exported approximately 46 to 58 percent of theirshipments to the United States from 1995 to 1997. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia,Invs. Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final), USITC Pub. 3159, February 1999, p. VII-3. 9 U.S. producer questionnaire response of ***, p. 5. *** also reported that many U.S. importers of certainpreserved mushrooms from China are avoiding the actual payment of antidumping orders by simply declaringbankruptcy and opening new importing operations. Customs has recently addressed this issue by dramaticallyincreasing the amount of the continuous bond required to be posted by U.S. importers of products subject toantidumping duty orders. See Amendment to Bond Directive 99-3510-004 for Certain Merchandise Subject toAntidumping/Countervailing Duty Cases, July 9, 2004,http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/07082004.xml. This scenario may be occurring with regardto certain preserved mushrooms as evidenced by a relatively high number of undeliverable questionnaires sent by theCommission to companies reported by Customs to have imported product from China.

IV-6

processors of certain preserved mushrooms in China, each with a capacity to produce approximately 10 to20 million pounds annually, that could begin shipping to the United States in the event the antidumpingduty order is revoked with regard to China.9

After the imposition of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from China,U.S. imports from China dramatically decreased in 1999, but subsequently began increasing. By 2003,U.S. imports from China were again at levels reported in 1998, before the imposition of the antidumpingduty order. Figure IV-2 provides data obtained from the United Nations regarding exports of “cannedmushrooms” from China. As shown, exports of canned mushrooms from China have increased since1999, thereby tracking the trend observed in the data on U.S. imports from China.

Figure IV-2Exports of canned mushrooms from China, 1995-2002

Source: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division,http://www.fao.org/es/ess/toptrade.asp.

10 Commission Regulation 2858/2000, December 27, 2000 amending the 1995 regulation 2125/95 whichimposed the quota system. 11 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in India had a reportedcapacity ranging from *** pounds in 1995 to *** pounds in 1997, production ranging from *** pounds in 1997 to*** pounds in 1996, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United States from1995 to 1997. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India, andIndonesia, Staff Report, January 20, 1999, INV-W-005, p. VII-6. 12 Hindustan Lever, Ltd. (which merged with Pond’s India, Ltd. in 1998); Mandeep Mushrooms, Ltd.; PremierExplosives, Ltd.; Saptarishi Agro Industries, Ltd.; and Weikfield Agro Products, Ltd. did not provide responses tothe Commission’s questionnaire. 13 Imports of certain preserved mushrooms into the EU are subject to a tariff-rate quota system that commenced in1995. Imports from India do not have a country-specific quota and would fall under the “other” countries annualquota limit of 3,290 metric tons (7.253 million pounds). 14 ***. 15 ***.

IV-7

Imports of certain preserved mushrooms from China into the EU are subject to a tariff-rate quotasystem that commenced in 1995. The EU tariff-rate quota system sets an annual limit on imports fromChina at 22,750 metric tons (50.155 million pounds) and out-of-quota tariff rates of 18.4 percent plus 191Euros per 100 kilograms (220.46 pounds) for HTS subheading 2003.10.20 and 18.4 percent plus 222Euros per 100 kg for HTS subheading 2003.10.30.10

THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA

Table IV-3 presents data for reported production and shipments of certain preserved mushroomsfor India.11 The Commission requested data from seven firms and received responses from two firms,Agro Dutch and Himalya International, Ltd. (“Himalya”).12

Agro Dutch reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms. It reported that its 2003 production accounted for *** percent of totalproduction of certain preserved mushrooms in India. In 2003, *** percent of Agro Dutch’s totalshipments were exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of its shipments of certainpreserved mushrooms were to countries in the European Union,13 *** percent to countries in Asia, and*** percent to other countries such as ***. It reported *** shipments of certain preserved mushrooms inits home market.14 From 1998 to 2003, Agro Dutch’s volume of shipments exported to the United Statesincreased by *** percent, and its volume of shipments exported to other world markets rose by ***percent. Agro Dutch’s capacity increased by *** percent from 1998 to 2003, as did its production by ***percent. ***, its five largest U.S. customers were: ***.

Himalya reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms. It reported that its 2003 production accounted for *** percent of totalproduction of certain preserved mushrooms in India and that its total 2003 exports accounted for ***percent of total Indian exports to the United States. In 2003, *** percent of Himalya’s total shipmentswere exported to the United States. In 2003, it reported that *** percent of its shipments of certainpreserved mushrooms were made in its home market. During the period of review, Himalya ***. From1998 to 2003, Himalya’s volume of shipments exported to the United States increased from *** poundsin 1998 to *** pounds in 2003 while its home market shipments increased from *** in 1998 to ***pounds in 2003. Himalya’s capacity remained steady at *** pounds during the period reviewed. Itsproduction, however, fluctuated, ranging from *** pounds in 1998 to *** pounds in 2000.15 *** U.S.importer of certain preserved mushrooms.

16 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in Indonesia had areported capacity ranging from *** pounds in 1995 to *** pounds in 1997, production ranging from *** pounds in1996 to *** pounds in 1995, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United Statesfrom 1995 to 1997. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Preserved Mushrooms from China, India,and Indonesia, Staff Report, January 20, 1999, INV-W-005, p. VII-7. 17 On September 22, 2004, the Commission also sent questionnaires to three other potential producers of certainpreserved mushrooms in Indonesia (PT Double Eight International, PT Inti Jamur Raya, and CV Multi Bertha) butdid not receive a response. 18 Petitioners argue that an increase in Indonesian capacity may be inferred from a new shipper review conductedby Commerce that included two new Indonesian producers. Petitioners’ response to notice of institution, December23, 2003, p. 10. Respondents state that the two new shippers, PT Karya and PT Eka, were found to be selling certainpreserved mushrooms in the United States at fair values. Respondents’ response to notice of institution, December23, 2003, p. 16. 19 ***. 20 Reporting Indonesian producers projected that their exports to the United States would increase from ***pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004, *** pounds in 2005, and *** pounds in 2006. Indonesian respondents’posthearing brief, p. 9.

IV-8

Table IV-3Certain preserved mushrooms: India’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, andinventories, 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA

Table IV-4 presents data for reported production and shipments of certain preserved mushroomsfor Indonesia.16 The Commission received data from five firms, PT Dieng Djaya (“PT Dieng”), PT EkaTimur Raya (“PT Eka”), PT Karya Kompos Bagas (“PT Karya”), PT Indo Evergreen Agro BusinessCorp. (“PT Indo”), and PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa (“PT Surya”), which together accounted for themajority of certain preserved mushroom production in Indonesia during the period reviewed. PT ZetaAgro, the producer of certain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia for which the antidumping duty orderwas revoked in 2002, did not provide the Commission with a questionnaire response.17

Table IV-4Certain preserved mushrooms: Indonesia’s reported production capacity, production, shipments,and inventories, 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

Cumulatively, producers of certain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia reported relatively steadycapacity from 1998 to 2002 and capacity utilization rates ranging from *** percent in 2002 to *** percentin 1999 (table IV-4).18 In 2003, capacity decreased by *** percent caused in large part by ***.19 Theirreported production also decreased by *** percent during the review period. However, reportingIndonesian producers projected that their capacity to produce certain preserved mushrooms wouldincrease from *** pounds in 2003 to ***. Indonesian producers of certain preserved mushrooms reportedexporting to the United States *** percent to *** percent of their total shipments during the periodreviewed,20 with other markets in Asia accounting for *** percent to *** percent during the same period.

21 Imports of certain preserved mushrooms into the EU are subject to a tariff-rate quota system that commenced in1995. Imports from Indonesia do not have a country-specific quota and would fall under the “other” countriesannual quota limit of 3,290 metric tons (7.253 million pounds). 22 General Mills has imported certain preserved mushrooms from India and China, but currently sources all thecertain preserved mushrooms it uses in the United States from Indonesia, citing quality and consistency issues withproduct from India and China. Hearing transcript (Mr. Larson), pp. 149-151. 23 PT Dieng reported ***. Indonesian respondents’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 18, and exh. 4. 24 Commerce, in a new shipper review, assigned PT Eka a zero percent dumping margin. Certain PreservedMushrooms from Indonesia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 68 FR 39520, July 2, 2003. 25 ***, it increased its capacity by approximately *** percent with the ***. 26 ***. Indonesian respondents’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 20-22.

IV-9

Producers in Indonesia also reported *** volumes of export shipments to the EU21 and other countries. General Mills, a U.S. importer of certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia,22 claims that product fromIndonesia, which it states is largely whole and sliced mushrooms for the retail market, differs fromimports from other countries, which are mainly pieces and stems sold in the industrial channels ofdistribution.

PT Dieng reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms. It reported that its 2003 production accounted for *** percent of totalproduction of certain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia and that its total 2003 exports accounted for ***percent of total Indonesian exports to the United States. PT Dieng ceased production of certain preservedmushrooms in early 2003 due to ***. In 2002 (PT Dieng’s last year of full production), *** percent of itstotal shipments were exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of its shipments of certainpreserved mushrooms were to its home market and that *** percent were to countries in Asia. PTDieng’s volume of shipments exported to the United States decreased by *** percent from 1998 to 2002,as its volume of shipments exported to other world markets also decreased. PT Dieng’s capacitydecreased by *** percent from 1998 to 2003.23 Its largest U.S. customers were: ***.

PT Eka commenced production of certain preserved mushrooms in 2002.24 It reported that ***percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of certain preserved mushrooms. PT Ekastated that its 2003 production accounted for approximately *** percent of total production of certainpreserved mushrooms in Indonesia and that its total 2003 exports accounted for approximately ***percent of total Indonesian exports to the United States. In 2003, *** percent of PT Eka’s total shipmentswere exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of its shipments of certain preservedmushrooms were internally consumed or to its home market and *** percent were to countries in Asia. From 2002 to 2003, PT Eka’s volume of shipments exported to the United States increased by ***percent, and its volume of shipments exported to other world markets decreased by *** percent. Itscapacity remained steady from 2002 to 2003;25 however, its production increased by *** percent. PTEka’s five largest U.S. customers were: ***.

PT Indo reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms. It reported that its 2003 production accounted for approximately ***percent of total production of certain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia and that its total 2003 exportsaccounted for approximately *** percent of total Indonesian exports to the United States. PT Indo ceasedproduction of certain preserved mushrooms in July 2003 due to ***.26 In 2003, *** percent of its totalshipments were exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of its shipments of certainpreserved mushrooms were either internally consumed or made to its home market and that *** percentwere to countries in Asia. PT Indo’s volume of shipments exported to the United States decreased by ***percent from 1998 to 2003, and its volume of shipments exported to other world markets also decreased. PT Indo’s reported capacity remained steady from 1998 to 2002, however, decreased by *** percent in

27 ***. Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,68 FR 39520, July 2, 2003. 28 ***. 29 ***.

IV-10

2003, the year in which it ceased production. Its largest U.S. customers were: ***.PT Karya commenced production of certain preserved mushrooms in 2002.27 It reported that ***

percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of certain preserved mushrooms. PTKarya stated that its 2003 production accounted for approximately *** percent of total production ofcertain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia and that its total 2003 exports accounted for approximately*** percent of total Indonesian exports to the United States. In 2003, *** percent of PT Karya’s totalshipments were exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of its shipments of certainpreserved mushrooms were internally consumed or to its home market and *** percent were to countriesin Asia. From 2002 to 2003, PT Karya’s volume of shipments exported to the United States increased by*** percent, and its volume of shipments exported to other world markets decreased by *** percent. Itscapacity *** from 2002 to 2003;28 however, its production increased by *** percent. PT Karya’s largestU.S. customers were: ***.

PT Surya reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales ofcertain preserved mushrooms. It reported that its 2003 production accounted for approximately ***percent of total production of certain preserved mushrooms in Indonesia and that its total 2003 exportsaccounted for approximately *** percent of total Indonesian exports to the United States. In 2003, ***percent of its total shipments were exported to the United States. It reported that *** percent of itsshipments of certain preserved mushrooms were either internally consumed or made to its home marketand that *** percent were to countries in Asia. PT Surya’s volume of shipments exported to the UnitedStates increased by *** percent from 1998 to 2003, as its volume of shipments exported to other worldmarkets *** increased. PT Surya’s capacity remained steady from 1998 to 2003; however, its productionincreased by *** percent.29 Its largest U.S. customers were: ***.

1 These estimates are based on HTS subheadings and statistical reporting numbers 0711.51.00, 2003.10.0127,2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, and 2003.10.0153. 2 One importer shipped most of its product over 1,000 miles and one shipped ***. 3 Two importers and none of the producers sold over 50 percent on long-term contracts.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for certain preserved mushrooms from subject countries to the United States(excluding U.S. inland costs) in 2003 are estimated to be equivalent to approximately 15.0 percent of thecustoms value for product from China, 11.1 percent of the customs value for product from India, and13.3 percent of the customs value for product from Indonesia. There have been no imports from Chilesince 1998, so their transportation cost is not estimated. These estimates are derived from official importdata and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as comparedwith customs value.1

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs ranged between 2 percent and 7 percent for U.S. producers andbetween 1 percent and 10 percent for importers. Most producers (five of the six responding) and six ofthe 14 responding importers shipped most of their sales between 101 and 1,000 miles to their customers. However, importers were more likely to ship shorter distances, with six reporting shipping most of theirproduct distances of 100 miles or less; only one U.S. producer reported shipping most of its product thisdistance.2

Exchange Rates

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund for the Chilean peso, Indian rupee,and the Indonesian rupiah from January 1998 through December 2003 for nominal and real values of thecurrencies are presented in figure V-1 as available. The Chinese yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar andtherefore it is not shown.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

The most common type of sales for both producers and importers is spot sales. Four of sevenresponding U.S. producers and seven of 14 responding importers reported that at least 50 percent of theirsales of certain preserved mushrooms are made on a spot basis. Short-term contracts were also commonwith five importers and three U.S. producers, which sold more than 50 percent on such contracts.3

V-2

Figure V-1Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Chilean, Indian, andIndonesian currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

Chilean peso

Indian rupee

Figure continued on next page.

V-3

Figure V-1--ContinuedExchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Chilean, Indian, andIndonesian currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

Indonesian rupiah

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, January 2001, January 2003, and June 2004.

Of the 14 importers reporting sales terms, only two reported selling mostly using long-termcontracts, five sold mostly with short-term contracts, six sold mostly with spot sales, and the otherimporter sold half through short-term contracts and half in spot sales. Importers sometimes renegotiatedthe price during contracts, with one of the three reporting prices renegotiated in long-term contracts andfive of ten reporting prices renegotiated in short-term contracts. Ten out of 12 responding importersreported both price and quantity were fixed in contracts, and the other two reported flexibility in price andquantity. All three reporting on long-term contracts reported fixed price and quantity. Only threeimporters reported meet-or-release provisions; all reported that these were rarely invoked.

Only one U.S. producer reported any long-term contracts. Four of the seven responding U.S.producers sold most of their product on a spot basis, and the other three sold primarily using short-termcontracts. However, two firms reported that the length of short-term contracts was typically one year, thesame length of time as the one that reported long-term contracts. Three of five responding U.S. producersreported that prices could not be renegotiated in short-term contracts, and the one responding for long-term contracts reported that price could be renegotiated for “acts of God.” Five of the six

4 Price data for U.S. product came from ***. *** provided price data for Chinese, Indian, and Indonesian product. *** provided pricing data for Chinese and Indonesian product. *** provided pricing data for Indian and Indonesianproduct. In addition, *** provided Chinese price data; *** provided Indian price data; and *** provided Indonesianprice data.

V-4

responding producers reported that contracts fixed both price and quantity. Only one of the fiveresponding producers reported meet-or-release provisions in contracts; it reported that these wereoccasionally invoked.

Long-term contracts ranged from a year to a year and a half. Short-term contracts were typically3 months long for importers, reported by six of the 11 importers responding. The length of U.S.producers’ contracts ranged up to 12 months, with three of the five responding producers reportingcontract lengths of 6 months or less. Both f.o.b. and delivered pricing are common, with six of 13importers and one of four producers reporting either f.o.b. or ex dock pricing. In addition, four importersand two producers reported using delivered prices, and three importers and one producer reported thatboth methods were used.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of certain preserved mushrooms toprovide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of certain preserved mushrooms that wereshipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January 1998 toDecember 2003. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.– Stems and pieces, in 4-ounce cans (excluding stems and pieces that are packed in butter or butter sauce)

Product 2.– Stems and pieces in 68-ounce cans (excluding stems and pieces that are packed in butter or butter sauce)

Product 3.– Sliced mushrooms, in 4-ounce cans (excluding sliced mushrooms that are packed in butter or butter sauce)

Six U.S. producers, six importers of preserved mushrooms from China, eight importers ofpreserved mushrooms from India, and nine importers of preserved mushrooms from Indonesia providedusable pricing data for sales of the requested products,4 although not all firms reported pricing for allproducts for all quarters. Customs reported no imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile after 1998,and thus no Chilean price data were available. By quantity, pricing data reported by responding firms in1998 through 2003 accounted for approximately 21.4 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of certain

5 The low Chinese coverage is in part due to the large number of importers’ questionnaires that were undeliverablebecause the importers were no longer in existence. In addition ***, a Chinese importer, provided some priceinformation in its questionnaire, but it was not usable because the firm did not identify which product the data werefor and the questionnaire did not provide any of the requested contact information. *** reported that many U.S.importers of certain preserved mushrooms from China are avoiding the actual payment of antidumping duty ordersby simply declaring bankruptcy and opening new importing operations. Pricing data would not be available fromthese bankrupt firms. 6 *** gave annual price and quantity data for product *** from India. These data have been allocated equallyamong the quarters of each of the years. If ***. 7 *** was unable to break out price and quantity data for PT Zeta Agro from the other Indonesian price data. TheirIndonesian data were therefore included in the subject Indonesian price data before 2002 but excluded from the pricedata from 2002 through 2003. If ***. 8 The antidumping duty order for Indonesian product produced by PT Zeta Agro was revoked by Commerceeffective February 1, 2002. 9 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, pp. 34-35. 10 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, pp. 34-36. 11 Staff telephone calls with ***. 12 This calculation is based on a 24-pack case. Hearing transcript (Mr. Larson), p. 197. 13 General Mills’ posthearing brief, p. 8. 14 Indonesian respondents’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 26.

V-5

preserved mushrooms, 4.3 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China,5 37.7 percent of U.S.shipments of subject imports from India,6 and 46.6 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports fromIndonesia.7 These coverage numbers do not include the General Mills data given for the price of 4.5-ounce glass jars as explained below.

Product 1 is the most common product for retail sales to households. Among producers, threesupplied data, and among importers, five supplied data for Chinese product, four supplied data for Indianproduct, and eight supplied data for subject Indonesian product.8 The petitioners question the validity ofthe pricing data General Mills provided for product 1.9 The price for product 1 reported by General Mills***. Petitioners question whether the price provided *** sales values net of returns, refunds, discountsand credits, and add that *** are not realistic. Moreover, branded products typically incur promotionalexpenses such as slotting fees and merchandise promotion costs which would cause list prices and netprices to differ.10 ***.11 ***.12 The price data for product 1 in this section are presented both includingand excluding General Mills’ prices.

Product 2 is the most common product for sales to industrial users. Among producers, sixsupplied data, and among importers, five supplied data for Chinese product, seven supplied data forIndian product, and five supplied data for subject Indonesian product.

Product 3 is a more expensive product for retail sales to households. Among producers, twosupplied data, and among importers, three supplied data for Chinese product, three supplied data forIndian product, and four supplied data for the subject Indonesian product. General Mills reported that itdid not sell sliced mushrooms in 4-ounce cans (product 3) but did sell them in 4.5-ounce glass jars andsubmitted price data for this product. General Mills reports that these products are comparable, althoughthe glass product would cost slightly more because of the higher cost of glass jars.13 The Indonesianrespondents reported that General Mills’ price data for product in glass jars would be comparable to thosein cans on a per-pound basis.14 In contrast, the petitioners reported that the prices of cans and jars wouldnot be comparable. Product in glass jars “involve significantly higher cost than do mushrooms in

15 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, pp. 38-39. 16 According to ***, product in glass jars is typically higher priced than in cans both because it must be morevisually appealing and because glass jars cost more than cans. U.S. producers reported that product in glass jarscould be priced *** to *** percent more than similar product in cans. Staff telephone calls with ***. 17 When prices from General Mills are excluded from the data for product 1, there are *** instances of undersellingand *** instances of overselling.

V-6

cans,” and glass jars cost more than cans.15 Though requested, neither General Mills nor the respondentsgave any indication of the amount by which the prices for product in 4.5-ounce glass jars should beadjusted to be comparable to product in 4-ounce cans. Data for the product in 4.5-ounce glass jars are notincluded in the pricing tables in this section.16

Appendix G includes price data that could not be included in these price tables, including data forproduct produced by PT Zeta when it was nonsubject, data for product that combined PT Zeta with otherIndonesian product when PT Zeta was nonsubject, and prices provided by General Mills for slicedproduct in 4.5-ounce glass jars.

Price Trends

Prices for preserved mushrooms did not follow a single pattern over the period January 1998through December 2003; prices for some products from some countries rose while others fell (tables V-1to V-4 and figure V-2). Additionally, there were not observations for all products from all sourcesthroughout the period for which data were requested. The descriptions below concern those periods forwhich data were reported. The prices for U.S., Chinese, and subject Indonesian product 1 rose whileprices for Indian product and Indonesian product 1 *** fell. Prices for U.S. and Indian product 2 fellwhile the price for subject Indonesian product 1 rose and the price of the Chinese product was unchanged. Prices for U.S., Indian, and subject Indonesian product 3 fell, while the Chinese product’s price rose.

Price Comparisons

Tables V-1 to V-3 and figure V-2 present selling prices. Overall, there was more undersellingthan overselling by subject imports, with 17 instances of underselling by imports for product 1 and 46 ofoverselling;17 35 instances of underselling and 24 of overselling by importers for product 2; and 46instances of underselling and 11 of overselling by imports for product 3. For country-by-countrycomparisons by product and by year, see tables V-4 and V-5.

Volumes of the U.S.-produced, Chinese, and Indian products were greatest for sales of product 2,the lowest priced product that is typically not for retail use. In contrast, Indonesian volumes were largestfor product 1, typically sold in the retail market.

Table V-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic andimported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 1998-December2003

* * * * * * *

V-7

Table V-2Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic andimported product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

Period

United States China India

Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand

poundsdrainedweight)

Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand


Margin(percent)

Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand


Margin(percent)

1998: Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 1.09 7,005 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.09 6,849 *** *** *** *** *** ***

1999: Jan.-Mar. 1.13 5,815 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 1.14 5,573 *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 1.16 6,923 - - - *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.16 6,814 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2000: Jan.-Mar. 1.20 5,363 - - - *** *** ***

Apr.-June 1.15 5,257 - - - *** *** ***

July-Sept. 1.12 6,179 - - - *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.12 6,727 - - - *** *** ***

2001: Jan.-Mar. 1.09 6,386 - - - *** *** ***

Apr.-June 1.08 5,698 - - - *** *** ***

July-Sept. 1.04 5,639 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.02 5,841 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2002: Jan.-Mar. 1.02 5,042 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apr.-June 1.02 5,333 *** *** *** *** *** ***

July-Sept. 0.99 5,259 - - - *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.06 5,528 - - - *** *** ***

2003: Jan.-Mar. 1.03 4,941 - - - *** *** ***

Apr.-June 1.04 4,667 - - - *** *** ***

July-Sept. 1.06 5,811 - - - *** *** ***

Oct.-Dec. 1.12 5,005 - - - *** *** ***

Table continued.

V-8

Table V-2--ContinuedCertain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic andimported product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

Period

United States Indonesia2 All subject combined

Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand


Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand


Margin(percent)

Price(per

pounddrainedweight)

Quantity(thousand


Margin(percent)

1998: Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $1.01 1,219 ***

Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** 1.00 1,644 ***

July-Sept. 1.09 7,005 *** *** *** 1.08 1,012 0.3

Oct.-Dec. 1.09 6,849 *** *** *** 1.11 1,195 (2.4)

1999: Jan.-Mar. 1.13 5,815 *** *** *** 1.16 892 (2.2)

Apr.-June 1.14 5,573 *** *** *** 1.14 1,501 0.1

July-Sept. 1.16 6,923 *** *** *** 1.15 1,023 0.9

Oct.-Dec. 1.16 6,814 *** *** *** 1.08 1,871 6.9

2000: Jan.-Mar. 1.20 5,363 *** *** *** 1.05 1,346 12.2

Apr.-June 1.15 5,257 *** *** *** 1.01 1,412 12.1

July-Sept. 1.12 6,179 *** *** *** 1.00 1,658 11.0

Oct.-Dec. 1.12 6,727 *** *** *** 0.96 1,787 13.7

2001: Jan.-Mar. 1.09 6,386 *** *** *** 0.90 2,126 17.7

Apr.-June 1.08 5,698 *** *** *** 0.94 1,888 13.1

July-Sept. 1.04 5,639 *** *** *** 0.89 2,573 15.1

Oct.-Dec. 1.02 5,841 *** *** *** 0.87 4,421 14.7

2002: Jan.-Mar. 1.02 5,042 *** *** *** 0.81 4,074 20.8

Apr.-June 1.02 5,333 *** *** *** 0.83 1,445 19.1

July-Sept. 0.99 5,259 *** *** *** 0.78 892 21.8

Oct.-Dec. 1.06 5,528 *** *** *** 0.71 1,942 33.6

2003: Jan.-Mar. 1.03 4,941 *** *** *** 0.69 2,841 33.4

Apr.-June 1.04 4,667 *** *** *** 0.69 2,403 33.6

July-Sept. 1.06 5,811 *** *** *** 0.78 3,397 26.1

Oct.-Dec. 1.12 5,005 *** *** *** 0.79 3,443 28.81 Stems and pieces in 68-ounce cans (excluding stems and pieces that are packed in butter or butter sauce).2 Data for Indonesia include sales data for product produced by PT Zeta Agro Corp. during 1998-2001 but not during 2002-

2003 because it became nonsubject.


V-9

Table V-3Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic andimported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 1998-December2003

* * * * * * *

Table V-4Certain preserved mushrooms: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices and changes in prices1

for products 1 through 3, by countries

Country

Numberof

quarters

Highestprice

Lowestprice

Change inprice1

Per pounddrainedweight

Per pounddrainedweight Percent

Product 1

United States 24 $*** $*** 5.8

China 23 *** *** 19.4

India 16 *** *** ***

Indonesia 24 *** *** ***

India (excluding General Mills) 16 *** *** ***

Indonesia (excluding General Mills) 24 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 24 $1.20 $0.99 ***

China 11 *** *** -0.6

India 24 *** *** -20.5

Indonesia 24 *** *** 12.0

Product 3

United States 24 $*** $*** -5.2

China 18 *** *** 91.2

India 15 *** *** -55.5

Indonesia 24 *** *** -37.2

1 Changes in price are based on prices from the first quarter to the last quarter reported, which differ for variouscountries and products and thus should be compared with caution.


V-10

Table V-5Certain preserved mushrooms: Summary of subject imports’ underselling/overselling, by year

Country/year

Number ofquarters

of underselling

Number ofquarters

of overselling

Simple averagemargin of

underselling/(overselling)

Weighted-average marginof underselling/

(overselling)

China

1998 8 4 10.4 19.3

1999 5 6 (9.8) 5.5

2000 2 1 (9.9) 2.0

2001 6 3 (0.1) 8.7

2002 6 3 (1.8) 6.6

2003 7 1 2.2 6.9

Total 34 18 6.5 9.4

India (including General Mills’ products 1 and 2)

1998 *** *** *** ***

1999 *** *** *** ***

2000 *** *** *** ***

2001 *** *** *** ***

2002 *** *** *** ***

2003 *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** ***

Indonesia (including General Mills’ products 1 and 2)

1998 *** *** *** ***

1999 *** *** *** ***

2000 *** *** *** ***

2001 *** *** *** ***

2002 *** *** *** ***

2003 *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** *** ***


Figure V-2Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices (per pound drained weight) ofdomestic and imported products 1-3, by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

* * * * * * *

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENTON ADEQUACY

62322 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 2003 / Notices

1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 03–5–077, expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 7 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.

possession of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, Seattle, WA, that meets the definition of sacred object under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service’s administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.

The one cultural item (catalog number 2–11783) is a man’s buckskin perforated shirt decorated with beadwork that was collected on the Spokane Indian Reservation by University of Washington faculty anthropologist Verne Ray in 1928. It was purchased by the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum in 1930 and accessioned as number 2346. Dr. Ray’s notes indicate that the shirt was made by an unnamed member of the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington and was worn by a member of the tribe residing on the Spokane Indian Reservation. Shirts of this type are part of a religious system involving the acquisition of guardian spirit powers. Consultation with religious leaders and representatives of the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington indicates that the shirt has ongoing religious importance and that the shirt is a ceremonial object essential for the continuation of traditional religious practices in the tribe.

Officials of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum have determined, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001, that the cultural item is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Officials of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum also have determined that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object should contact Dr. James D. Nason, Chairman, Repatriation Committee, Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, Box 353010, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195–3010, telephone (206) 543–9680, before December 3, 2003. Repatriation of the sacred object to the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane

Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum is responsible for notifying the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published.

Dated: September 10, 2003.John Robbins,Assistant Director, Cultural Resources.[FR Doc. 03–27525 Filed 10–31–03; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4312–50–S

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–776–779 (Review)]

Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is December 23, 2003. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by January 16, 2004. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background—On December 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile (63 FR 66529) and on February 19, 1999, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of preserved mushrooms from China, India, and Indonesia (64 FR 8308–8312). Commerce subsequently revoked in part the order on imports from Indonesia (68 FR 39521, July 2, 2003). The Commission is conducting reviews to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions—The following definitions apply to these reviews:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations, the Commission found one domestic like product consisting of preserved mushrooms corresponding to the scope of Commerce’s investigations.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:46 Oct 31, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM 03NON1

62323Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 2003 / Notices

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry to consist of all domestic producers of preserved mushrooms. Certain Commissioners defined the Domestic Industry differently.

(5) The Order Date is the date that the antidumping duty orders under review became effective. In the review concerning Chile, the Order Date is December 2, 1998. In the reviews concerning China, India, and Indonesia, the Order Date is February 19, 1999.

(6) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the reviews and public service list—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission’s designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is the ‘‘same particular matter’’ as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee’s participation was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’ However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol

McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification—Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions—Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is December 23, 2003. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is January 16, 2004. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of §§ 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the

Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information—Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews.

Information to be Provided in Response to this Notice of Institution: If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty


62324 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 212 / Monday, November 3, 2003 / Notices

orders on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries since 1998.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2002 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2002 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from

each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2002 (report quantity data in pounds and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) The quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise

produced in the Subject Countries, and such merchandise from other countries.

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: October 28, 2003.By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission.[FR Doc. 03–27598 Filed 10–31–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Shani Distributors Denial of Application

On August 20, 2002, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Shani Distributors (Shani) proposing to deny its application, executed on October 21, 1999, for DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals. The Order to Show Cause alleged that granting the application of Shani would be inconsistent with the public interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(h) and 824(a). The Order to Show Cause also notified Shani that should no request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, its hearing right would be deemed waived.

According to the DEA investigative file, the Order to Show Cause was sent by certified mail to Shani at its proposed registered location in Oklahoma city, Oklahoma. The return receipt indicated that the show cause order has been forwarded by the United States Postal Service to Shani at a second location where it was received on August 28, 2002. DEA has not received a request for hearing or any other reply from Shani or anyone purporting to represent the company in this matter.

Therefore, the Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days having passed since receipt of the Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request for hearing having been received, concludes that Shani has waived its hearing right. See Aqui Enterprises, 67 FR 12576 (2002). After considering relevant


7793Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2004 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Newmont Mining Corporation, has been approved to expand its current operations near Battle Mountain, Nevada, to include mining and beneficiation of gold, silver, and copper ores. The proposed Phoenix Project would require up to an additional 4,308 acres of disturbance. BMG would develop the Phoenix and Reona pits and expand the Midas and Iron Canyon pits. Mining these ore deposits would be coupled with excavating and beneficiating low-grade gold ore stockpiles associated with the previous Tomboy, Northeast Extension, and Fortitude mining operations. Beneficiation operations would include heap leach facility expansion and new milling facilities. The projected mine life is up to 28 years, followed by 5 years of reclamation.

Dated: December 2, 2003. Gerald M. Smith, Field Manager, Battle Mountain Field Office.[FR Doc. 04–3484 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR 120 5882 CC99; HAG# 04–0101]

Notice of Public Meeting, Coos Bay Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

February 12, 2004.AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.ACTION: Notice of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) Meeting as identified in section 205(f)(2) of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, Public Law 106–393 (the Act).

SUMMARY: The BLM Coos Bay District RAC will be meeting on February 26, 2004 from 1 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. at the North Bend Public Library. The North Bend Public Library is located at 1800 Sherman Avenue in North Bend, Oregon. The purpose of this meeting will be for the RAC to discuss funding for an organic noxious weed control project, discuss RAC communication issues, and elect a Chairperson.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Richardson, District Manager, at 756–0100 or Glenn Harkleroad, District Restoration Coordinator, at 751–4361 or [email protected]. The mailing address for the BLM Coos Bay District Office is 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information about the Coos Bay RAC agenda can be found at www.or.blm.gov/coosbay. A meeting agenda will be posted at this site as the meeting date nears.

Dated: February 12, 2004. Richard Conrad, Acting: Coos Bay District Manager.[FR Doc. 04–3585 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee Public Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee will meet on March 11, 2004. The agenda for the meeting will include staff updates on the February meeting of the California Bay-Delta Authority; consideration of subcommittee recommendations; and discussion of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program priorities, the Delta Improvements Package, surface storage investigations, and implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program with State and Federal agency representatives.DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, March 11, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. If reasonable accommodation is needed due to a disability, please contact Pauline Nevins at (916) 445–5511 or TDD (800) 735–2929 at least 1 week prior to the meeting.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the California Bay-Delta Authority offices at 650 Capitol Mall, 5th Floor, Bay-Delta Room, Sacramento, California.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Rooks, California Bay-Delta Authority, at (916) 445–5511, or Diane Buzzard, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, at (916) 978–5022.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, other participating Federal agencies, the Governor of the State of California, and the California Bay-Delta Authority on implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Committee makes recommendations on annual priorities, integration of the eleven Program elements, and overall

balancing of the four Program objectives of ecosystem restoration, water quality, levee system integrity, and water supply reliability. The Program is a consortium of State and Federal agencies with the mission to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the San Francisco/Sacramento and San Joaquin Bay Delta.

Committee and meeting material will be available on the California Bay-Delta Authority Web site at http://calwater.ca.gov and at the meeting. This meeting is open to the public. Oral comments will be accepted from members of the public at the meeting and will be limited to 3–5 minutes.(Authority: The Committee was established pursuant to the Department of the Interior’s authority to implement the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq., and the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq., and the acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, all collectively referred to as the Federal Reclamation laws, and in particular, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Pub. L. 102–575)

February 2, 2004. Allan Oto, Special Projects Officer, Mid-Pacific Region.[FR Doc. 04–3586 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M



Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.ACTION: Notice of Commission determinations to conduct full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:26 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1

7794 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2004 / Notices

of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 6, 2004, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (68 FR 62322, November 3, 2003) was adequate. The respondent interested party group response concerning preserved mushrooms from Indonesia was also found by the Commission to be adequate but the respondent interested party group responses concerning preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, and India were found by the Commission to be inadequate. The Commission also determined that other circumstances warranted conducting full reviews of all subject orders. A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s web site.

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.Issued: February 13, 2004.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA–W–53,916]

Diamond Crown Company, New York, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 31, 2003 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Diamond Crown Company, New York, New York.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, this investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February, 2004. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 04–3566 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–53,222]

Eastman Kodak Company Film Finishing Operations Rochester, NY; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 21, 2003, applicable to workers of Eastman Kodak Company, Film Finishing Operations located in Rochester, New York. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74979).

At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce 35mm consumer film and associated components.

The review shows that the company provided information in response to questions from the Department with respect to Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) that were not addressed in the decision document. The Department has determined that this information together with consumer film industry information warrants

ATAA certification for workers of the subject firm.

Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to reflect its finding.

The amended notice applicable to TA–W–53,222 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of the Eastman Kodak Company, Film Finishing Operations, Rochester, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 10, 2002, through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 04–3571 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–53,830]

J.S. Technos Corporation A Subsidiary of Bosch Corporation Russellville, KY; Notice of Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, investigation was initiated on December 18, 2003 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of the workers at J.S. Technos, a subsidiary of Robert Bosch Corporation, Russellville, Kentucky.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of February 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.[FR Doc. 04–3569 Filed 2–18–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


[TA–W–53,893]

Johnston Industries, Inc., Dewitt, IA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:26 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1

11384 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 10, 2004 / Notices

1 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 68 FR 45219 (August 1, 2003)

announcing the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People’s Republic of China. The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2002, to November 30, 2003. This review is now being rescinded for Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp., (‘‘Anhui Native’’), and Foodworld International Club, Ltd. (‘‘Foodworld’’) because the requesting party withdrew its request.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Abdelali Elouaradia, Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 7866, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0405 or (202) 482–1374, respectively.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of Review

The merchandise under review is honey from the PRC. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90 and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Background

On December 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order covering honey from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On December 2, 2003, the Department published a Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 68 FR 67401. On December 31, 2003, the American Honey Producers Association and the

Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department’s regulations, an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003.

The petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made by 20 Chinese producers/exporters, which included Anhui Native and Foodworld. On January 14, 2004, the petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their request for review of Henan Native Produce and Animal By–Products Import & Export Company, High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp., Jinan Products Industry Co., Ltd., and Native Produce and Animal Import & Export Co. On January 22, 2003, the Department initiated the review for the remaining 16 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 3009. The petitioners subsequently withdrew their request for review of Foodworld and Anhui Native on February 13, 2004 and February 18, 2004, respectively.

Rescission of Review

The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. The petitioners withdrew their review request with respect to Anhui Native and Foodworld within the 90–day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since the petitioners were the only party to request an administrative review of Anhui Native and Foodworld, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003, with respect to Anhui Native and Foodworld.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Dated: March 2, 2004.

James J. Jochum,Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.[FR Doc. 04–5383 Filed 3–9–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–337–804, A–533–813, A–560–802, A–570–851]

Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia and the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On August 1, 2003, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the notice of initiation of sunset reviews on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of China. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and the adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, we determined to conduct expedited (120–day) sunset reviews. As a result of these reviews, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alessandra Cortez or Ozlem Koray, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5925 or (202) 482–3675.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundOn August 1, 2003, the Department

published the notice of initiation of sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of China pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).1 The Department received the Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of a domestic interested party, the Coalition

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:48 Mar 09, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1

11385Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 10, 2004 / Notices

2 The Coalition includes L. K. Bowman, Inc., Monterey Mushrooms Inc., Mushroom Canning Company, and Sunny Dell Foods Inc.

for Fair Preserved Mushroom Trade (collectively the ‘‘Coalition’’) 2, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s Regulations (Sunset Regulations). The Coalition claimed interested party status under Section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of a domestic like product. We received complete substantive responses in the sunset reviews from the Coalition within the 30–day deadline specified in the Department’s Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i).

We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested parties to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department conducted expedited, 120–day reviews of these antidumping duty orders.

Scope of Review

The products covered under the Certain Preserved Mushrooms orders are imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The ‘‘preserved mushrooms’’ covered under the orders are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers, including but not limited to cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Included within the scope of these orders are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Also included within the scope of these orders, as of June 19, 2000, are marinated, acidified, or pickled mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid.

Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following: (1) all other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or ‘‘quick blanched mushrooms≥; (3) dried mushrooms; and (4) frozen mushrooms.The merchandise subject to these orders were previously classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. As of January 1, 2002, the HTSUS codes are as follows: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, 0711.51.0000.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in these cases by the Coalition are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 3, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B–099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading ‘‘March 2004.’’ The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, India, Indonesia, and the People’s Republic of China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted–average margins:

Chile Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted Average Margin Percent

Nature’s Farm Products (Chile) S.A. ....................................................................... 148.51Ravine Foods ........................................................................................................... 148.51All Others ................................................................................................................. 148.51

India Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted Average Margin Percent

Agro Dutch Foods Ltd ............................................................................................. 6.28Ponds (India) Ltd ..................................................................................................... 14.91Alpine Biotech Ltd .................................................................................................... 243.87Mandeep Mushrooms Ltd ........................................................................................ 243.87All Others ................................................................................................................. 11.30

Indonesia Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted Average Margin Percent

PT Dieng Djaya/PT Surya Jaya Abadi Perkasa ...................................................... 7.94PT Zeta Agro Corporation ....................................................................................... *revokedAll Others ................................................................................................................. 11.26

*Effective as of February 1, 2002, the antidumping duty order with respect to PT Zeta Agro Corporation was revoked. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 67 FR 4549 (February 1, 2002).

PRC Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted Average Margin Percent

China Processed Food I&E Co./Xiamen Jiahua I&ETrading Company, Ltd . ........ 121.47Tak Fat Trading Co ................................................................................................. 162.47


11386 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 10, 2004 / Notices

PRC Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted Average Margin Percent

Shenzhen Cofry Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs Co., Ltd ............................................ 151.15Gerber (Yunnan) Food Co ....................................................................................... 198.633

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Group Import & Export Corporation ............... 142.11Fujian Provincial Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp ........................................... 142.11Putian Cannery Fujian Province .............................................................................. 142.11Xiamen Gulong I&E Co., Ltd ................................................................................... 142.11General Canned Foods Factory of Zhangzhou ....................................................... 142.11Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs I&E Corp ........................................................ 142.11Shanghai Foodstuffs I&E Corp142.11 Canned Goods Co. of Raoping .................. 142.11PRC–wide Rate ....................................................................................................... 198.63

3 In the more recent administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, the Department applied an adverse facts available rate for Gerber (Yunnan) Co., of 198.63 which differs from the rate calculated for Gerber in the underlying investigation. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304 (July 11, 2003)

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: March 3, 2004.Joseph A. Spetrini,Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.[FR Doc. 04–5382 Filed 3–9–04; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–825]

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limits for the preliminary results of the 2002–2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Germany. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States and

the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran at (202) 482–1121 or Robert James at (202) 482–0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2003, in response to requests from the respondent and petitioners, we published a notice of initiation of this administrative review in the Federal Register. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 (August 22, 2003). Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the current deadlines are April 1, 2004 for the preliminary results and July 30, 2004, for the final results. It is not practicable to complete this review within the normal statutory time limit due to a number of significant case issues such as: the reporting of downstream sales, and the reporting of physical product characteristics. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until July 30, 2004 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: March 3, 2004. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III.[FR Doc. 04–5386 Filed 3–9–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Fees for Product Review and Approval

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.ACTION: Annual update of fees for product approval.

SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered derivatives transaction execution facilities to recover the costs of its review of requests for approval of products. The calculation of the fees to be charged for the upcoming year is based on an average of actual program costs, as explained below. The new fee schedule is set forth below.EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Shilts, Deputy Director for Market and Product Review, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5260.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Fees Fees charged for processing requests

for product review and approval:

Single Applications • A single futures contract or an

option on a physical—$6,000. • A single option on a previously-

approved futures contract—$1,000. • A combined submission of a futures

contract and an option on the same futures contract—$6,500.

Multiple Applications For multiple contract filings

containing related contracts, the product review and approval fees are:

• A submission of multiple related futures contracts—$6,000 for the first contract, plus $600 for each additional contract;

• A submission of multiple related options on futures contracts—$1,000 for


28156 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 96 / Tuesday, May 18, 2004 / Notices

complainant’s and respondents’ bearings. In order to allow sufficient time for the further fact finding, the Commission extended the target date for completion until May 12, 2004. The ALJ issued his additional findings on December 30, 2003. The parties to the investigation filed comments on the additional findings on January 12, 2004, and response comments on January 20, 2004.

The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.45(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)).

Issued: May 12, 2004.By order of the Commission.




Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 2004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain

information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On February 6, 2004, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (69 FR 7793, February 19, 2004). A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s web site.

Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the

Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 19, 2004, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission’s rules.

Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with these reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 9, 2004, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 1, 2004. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 3, 2004, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is September 2, 2004. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 20, 2004; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before September 20, 2004. On October 8, 2004, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before October 12, 2004, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 May 17, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1

28157Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 96 / Tuesday, May 18, 2004 / Notices

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR. 68036 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: May 13, 2004.By order of the Commission.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP(OJJDP) Docket No. 1399]

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Justice.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) is announcing the June 4, 2004, meeting of the Council.DATES: Friday, June 4, 2004, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the White House Conference Center (Truman Room), 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Wight, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, by telephone at (202) 514–2190, or by e-mail at [email protected] INFORMATION: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), will meet to carry out its advisory functions under section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council’s Web page at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/council/index.html. (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that Web address.)

The agenda for this meeting will include: (a) Review of past Council actions, (b) coordination of mentoring programs, and (c) discussion of the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth.

Written Comments: Interested parties may submit written comments by May 21, 2004, to Timothy Wight, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, at [email protected]. The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted statements. No oral comments will be permitted at this meeting.

For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register by calling the Juvenile Justice Resource Center at 301–519–6473 (Daryel Dunston) or 301–519–5790 (Karen Boston), no later than May 21, 2004. To register on-line, please go to http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/council/meetings.html. Space is limited.

Note: Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting.

Dated: May 12, 2004. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Vice-Chair, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.[FR Doc. 04–11129 Filed 5–17–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2004 Budget

Announcement Type: Initial announcement of availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.: 17.502.

DATES: Grant applications must be received by the OSHA Office of Training and Education in Arlington Heights, Illinois, by 4:30 p.m. (central time) on Friday, June 18, 2004.

SUMMARY: This notice contains all of the necessary information and forms needed to apply for grant funding. The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) awards funds to nonprofit organizations to provide training and education programs or to develop training materials for employers and workers about safety and health topics selected by OSHA. Any nonprofit organization, including community-based and faith-based organizations, that is not an agency of a State or local government, is eligible to apply. State or local government-supported institutions of higher education are eligible to apply in accordance with 29 CFR part 95. This notice announces grant availability for two different categories of Susan Harwood Training grants. General descriptions of the two categories of grants are provided below.

Targeted Topic Grants

The Targeted Topic category grants are available to nonprofit organizations to conduct training for employers and employees on four different occupational safety and health topic areas selected by OSHA.

OSHA Training Materials Development Grants

The OSHA Training Materials Development category grants are available to nonprofit organizations to develop, evaluate, and validate training materials on four different occupational safety and health topic areas selected by OSHA. The materials are to be tailored to the industry or hazard and selected target audience. Training materials are to be developed in portable formats that are suitable for hard-copy publication and distribution and for Internet publication and distribution. The materials are intended for use by employers, employees, and other interested parties for the conduct of training or for self-study.

ADDRESSES: Grant applications must be sent to the attention of: Grants Officer, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Training and Education—OETP, 2020 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005–4102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 May 17, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM 18MYN1

1 See 19.U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(D).

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACYin

Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia,Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Review)

On February 6, 2004, the Commission unanimously determined that it should proceed tofull reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5). The Commission, in consultation with theDepartment of Commerce, grouped these reviews because they involve the same domestic likeproduct.1

With regard to each of the reviews, the Commission determined that the domesticinterested party group response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commissionreceived an adequate response with company specific data from the Coalition for Fair PreservedMushroom Trade, which consists of four domestic producers of preserved mushrooms. Becausethe Commission received an adequate response from domestic producers accounting for asubstantial percentage of U.S. production, the Commission determined that the domesticinterested party group response was adequate.

In the review concerning subject imports from Indonesia, the Commission received anadequate joint response with company-specific data from five producers and exporters of thesubject merchandise: P.T. Dieng Djaya, P.T. Sura Jaya Abadi Perkasa, P.T. Karya KomposBagas, P.T. Eka Timur Raya, and P.T. Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp. Because theCommission received an adequate response representing a substantial percentage of subjectimports from Indonesia, the Commission determined that the respondent interested party groupresponse was adequate for the review concerning Indonesia. Accordingly, the Commissiondetermined to proceed to a full review in Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in thereviews concerning subject imports from Chile, China, or India. However, the Commissiondetermined to conduct full reviews to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision toconduct a full review with respect to the review concerning Indonesia.

B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’shearing:

Subject: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, andIndonesia

Invs. Nos.: 731-TA-776-779 (Review)

Date and Time: September 9, 2004 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street,SW, Washington, DC.

Opening Remarks:

In Support of the Continuation of Orders (Michael J. Coursey, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC)In Support of the Revocation of Orders (Jay C. Campbell, White & Case LLP)

In Support of the Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Orders:

Collier Shannon Scott, PLLCWashington, DCon behalf of

The Coalition for Fair Preserved Mushrooms Trade

Robert W. Shelton, President, L.K. Bowman Co.Shah Kazemi, President, Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.Dennis Newhard, President, Mushroom Canning Co.Patrick J. McGrath, Director, Georgetown Economic Services, LLCMichael T. Kerwin, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services, LLC

Michael J. Coursey--OF COUNSELKathleen W. CannonAdam H. Gordon

B-3

In Support of the Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders:

Neville Peterson LLPWashington, DCon behalf of

General Mills, Inc.

Duane Larson, Mushroom Buyer, General Mills, Inc.

George W. Thompson--OF COUNSEL

White & Case LLPWashington, DCon behalf of

PT Dieng DjayaPT Surya Jaya Abadi PerkasaPT Karya Kompos BagasPT Eka Timur RayaPT Indo Evergreen Agro Business Corp.

Frank H. Morgan--OF COUNSELJay C. Campbell

Rebuttal/Closing Remarks

In Support of the Continuation of Orders (Michael J. Coursey, Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC)In Support of the Revocation of Orders (Frank H. Morgan, White & Case LLP)

B-4

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 1998-2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds drained weight, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)Reported data Period changes

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998-2003 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181,796 180,627 198,689 175,264 173,167 187,903 3.4 -0.6 10.0 -11.8 -1.2 8.5 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 36.4 40.7 31.1 32.3 33.8 25.4 -11.0 4.3 -9.6 1.2 1.6 -8.4 Importers' share (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.6 -3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 0.2 4.2 11.0 11.9 25.6 -0.8 -26.3 4.0 6.9 0.8 13.7 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 17.7 17.3 16.8 13.8 14.4 7.5 10.8 -0.4 -0.5 -3.0 0.6 Indonesia (subject) . . . . . . . . 14.7 16.1 14.6 12.8 *** *** *** 1.4 -1.5 -1.8 *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.6 34.0 36.1 40.7 *** *** *** -17.6 2.1 4.5 *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject) . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 25.3 32.8 27.1 27.5 22.8 10.8 13.3 7.5 -5.7 0.4 -4.7 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.6 59.3 68.9 67.7 66.2 74.6 11.0 -4.3 9.6 -1.2 -1.6 8.4

U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,702 218,079 228,216 191,659 176,802 187,329 -5.2 10.3 4.6 -16.0 -7.8 6.0 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 41.9 45.5 35.7 36.0 38.2 29.7 -12.2 3.6 -9.9 0.3 2.2 -8.5 Importers' share (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.9 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0 0.2 3.3 10.0 11.0 23.1 4.2 -18.8 3.1 6.6 1.1 12.1 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 12.8 14.5 14.3 11.9 11.7 5.2 6.2 1.7 -0.2 -2.4 -0.2 Indonesia (subject) . . . . . . . . 15.4 18.0 16.9 15.0 *** *** *** 2.6 -1.2 -1.8 *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.9 31.0 34.7 39.3 *** *** *** -13.8 3.7 4.6 *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject) . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 23.5 29.6 24.6 24.9 21.3 8.0 10.2 6.2 -5.0 0.2 -3.6 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.1 54.5 64.3 64.0 61.8 70.3 12.2 -3.6 9.9 -0.3 -2.2 8.5

U.S. imports from: Chile: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,516 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,683 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.18 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

China: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139 0.2 -99.3 2,503.4 132.5 6.4 133.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,520 433 7,617 19,117 19,516 43,339 15.5 -98.8 1,657.5 151.0 2.1 122.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.78 $1.35 $0.91 $0.99 $0.95 $0.90 15.3 73.4 -32.5 8.0 -4.0 -5.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** India: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010 115.1 155.0 7.5 -14.4 -19.0 13.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,022 27,873 33,057 27,442 21,051 21,997 68.9 114.0 18.6 -17.0 -23.3 4.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.04 $0.87 $0.96 $0.93 $0.88 $0.81 -21.5 -16.1 10.3 -3.0 -5.3 -7.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia (subject): Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417 *** *** *** 9.1 -0.2 -22.8 *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,459 39,321 38,493 28,830 *** *** *** 29.1 -2.1 -25.1 *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.14 $1.35 $1.33 $1.29 *** *** *** 18.3 -1.9 -3.0 *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 *** *** *** -34.5 16.9 -0.8 *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,685 67,628 79,167 75,389 *** *** *** -23.7 17.1 -4.8 *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.95 $1.10 $1.10 $1.06 *** *** *** 16.4 0.2 -4.0 *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indonesia (nonsubject): Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** (3) (3) (3) *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** (3) (3) (3) *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** (3) (3) (3) *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** (3) (3) (3) *** *** Other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838 96.4 109.3 42.6 -27.1 0.2 -9.9 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809 52.2 95.6 32.2 -30.2 -7.0 -9.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.20 $1.12 $1.04 $1.00 $0.92 $0.93 -22.5 -6.6 -7.3 -4.2 -7.1 0.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216 21.3 -7.4 27.9 -13.3 -3.5 22.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,843 118,789 146,805 122,628 109,220 131,607 14.6 3.4 23.6 -16.5 -10.9 20.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.99 $1.11 $1.07 $1.03 $0.95 $0.94 -5.5 11.6 -3.3 -3.6 -7.7 -1.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***


C-3

Table C-1--ContinuedCertain preserved mushrooms: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 1998-2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds drained weight, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)Reported data Period changes

Item 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1998-2003 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 280,405 285,300 287,728 271,155 270,042 200,044 -28.7 1.7 0.9 -5.8 -0.4 -25.9 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 66,186 67,849 68,932 53,316 50,733 50,161 -24.2 2.5 1.6 -22.7 -4.8 -1.1 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . 23.6 23.8 24.0 19.7 18.8 25.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 -4.3 -0.9 6.3 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,196 73,525 61,741 56,543 58,552 47,687 -28.0 11.1 -16.0 -8.4 3.6 -18.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,859 99,290 81,411 69,031 67,582 55,722 -32.8 19.8 -18.0 -15.2 -2.1 -17.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 $1.35 $1.32 $1.22 $1.15 $1.17 -6.6 7.9 -2.4 -7.4 -5.5 1.2 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 14,578 8,902 16,090 12,860 4,841 7,313 -49.8 -38.9 80.7 -20.1 -62.4 51.1 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 330 321 328 270 260 266 -19.4 -2.7 2.2 -17.7 -3.7 2.3 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 435 433 502 430 402 380 -12.8 -0.5 15.9 -14.3 -6.5 -5.6 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . 5,372 5,480 6,999 6,633 6,423 5,988 11.5 2.0 27.7 -5.2 -3.2 -6.8 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.35 $12.66 $13.94 $15.43 $15.98 $15.78 27.8 2.5 10.2 10.6 3.6 -1.2 Productivity (pounds per hour) 125.6 140.0 133.8 124.0 126.2 132.2 5.2 11.5 -4.4 -7.3 1.8 4.7 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 $0.13 $0.12 21.5 -8.0 15.3 19.4 1.8 -5.7 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,133 71,437 64,639 57,251 59,943 49,724 -27.0 4.8 -9.5 -11.4 4.7 -17.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,714 98,393 87,008 70,610 69,463 58,139 -28.9 20.4 -11.6 -18.8 -1.6 -16.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.20 $1.38 $1.35 $1.23 $1.16 $1.17 -2.5 14.8 -2.3 -8.4 -6.0 0.9 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . 74,270 89,167 76,808 64,611 66,246 55,543 -25.2 20.1 -13.9 -15.9 2.5 -16.2 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 7,444 9,226 10,200 5,999 3,217 2,596 -65.1 23.9 10.6 -41.2 -46.4 -19.3 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 6,657 7,183 7,447 6,305 5,729 4,150 -37.7 7.9 3.7 -15.3 -9.1 -27.6 Operating income or (loss) . . . 787 2,043 2,753 (306) (2,512) (1,554) (4) 159.6 34.8 (4) -720.9 38.1 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 1,215 1,235 1,539 1,353 907 2,706 122.7 1.6 24.6 -12.1 -33.0 198.3 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.09 $1.25 $1.19 $1.13 $1.11 $1.12 2.5 14.5 -4.8 -5.0 -2.1 1.1 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $0.10 $0.10 $0.12 $0.11 $0.10 $0.08 -14.6 2.9 14.6 -4.4 -13.2 -12.7 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.01 $0.03 $0.04 ($0.01) ($0.04) ($0.03) (4) 147.6 48.9 (4) -684.0 25.4 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 90.9 90.6 88.3 91.5 95.4 95.5 4.6 -0.3 -2.3 3.2 3.9 0.2 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 2.1 3.2 (0.4) (3.6) (2.7) -3.6 1.1 1.1 -3.6 -3.2 0.9

(1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Imports from PT Zeta Agro are included in Indonesia (subject) for 1998-2001, and reported separately as Indonesia (nonsubject) for 2002 and 2003. (3) Not applicable. (4) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal-year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar-year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals showUnit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4

Table C-2Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports from nonsubject-country sources, 1998-2003

COUNTRY 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . 4,472 18,134 28,347 18,019 20,956 12,456Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,202 4,771 6,583 5,038 4,678 4,757Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,681 5,205 10,450 5,490 3,134 4,258France . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5,015 6,998 5,489 6,175 2,812Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,323 6,141 3,472 3,437 3,220 4,040Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049 2,989 2,218 2,936 3,748 6,006Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . 658 2,044 3,902 3,529 1,604 2,974Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 488 1,508 1,815 2,253 3,223 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . 19,561 44,787 63,479 45,752 45,768 40,526All other sources . . . . . 2,253 876 1,657 1,710 1,781 2,312 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838

LDP value ($1,000)

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . 4,612 19,054 28,886 17,776 18,860 12,017Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,343 7,322 8,295 6,367 5,544 5,456Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,605 5,307 10,565 5,422 3,023 3,885France . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5,703 7,456 5,102 6,056 2,667Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,643 6,678 3,412 3,387 2,546 2,291Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,691 3,059 2,079 2,375 3,061 5,666Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . 742 2,360 3,867 3,156 1,358 2,356Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 395 1,171 1,257 1,388 1,939 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . 23,858 49,878 65,731 44,843 41,836 36,278All other sources . . . . . 2,300 1,283 1,907 2,396 2,118 3,531 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,158 51,161 67,638 47,239 43,954 39,809

LDP unit value ($/pound)

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . 1.03 1.05 1.02 0.99 0.90 0.96Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.57 1.53 1.26 1.26 1.19 1.15Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.97 1.02 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.91France . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.47 1.14 1.07 0.93 0.98 0.95Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 1.09 0.98 0.99 0.79 0.57Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83 1.02 0.94 0.81 0.82 0.94Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13 1.15 0.99 0.89 0.85 0.79Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 0.81 0.78 0.69 0.62 0.60 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 1.22 1.11 1.04 0.98 0.91 0.90All other sources . . . . . 1.02 1.46 1.15 1.40 1.19 1.53 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 1.20 1.12 1.04 1.00 0.92 0.93

Note.--Countries ranked according to total import quantity during 1998-2003.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043,2003.10.0047, and 2003.10.0053 during 1998-2001; HTS 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143,2003.10.0147, and 2003.10.0153 during 2002-2003).

C-5

D-1

APPENDIX D

U.S. PRODUCERS’, U.S. IMPORTERS’, U.S. PURCHASERS’, AND FOREIGNPRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THEANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THELIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of theiroperations or organization relating to the production of certain preserved mushrooms in the future if theantidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,production, U.S. shipments, purchases, or employment relating to the production of certain preservedmushrooms in the future if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-16) Their responseswere as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orderscovering certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia in terms of their effects ontheir production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. (Question II-15) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THELIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of theiroperations or organization relating to the importation of certain preserved mushrooms in the future if theantidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their imports, U.S. shipmentsof imports, or inventories of certain preserved mushrooms in the future if the antidumping orders were tobe revoked. (Question II-11) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orderscovering certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia in terms of their effects ontheir imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-10) Their responses were asfollows:

* * * * * * *

D-4

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THELIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. purchasers were asked to describe the likely effects of any revocation of the antidumpingorders covering certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia in terms of (1) itsfuture activities and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. (Question III-35) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS ANDTHE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of theiroperations or organization relating to the production of certain preserved mushrooms in the future if theantidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-3) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventoriesrelating to the production of certain preserved mushrooms in the future if the antidumping orders were tobe revoked. (Question II-15) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orderscovering certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia in terms of their effects ontheir production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and othermarkets, or inventories. (Question II-14) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

U.S. PURCHASERS’ SOURCES OF CERTAIN PRESERVED MUSHROOMS

E-3

Table E-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Sources of product purchased, imported, or produced, bypurchaser, by type of firm purchasing, and by countries of origin, 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

F-1

APPENDIX F

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY AND TYPES OF ENDUSERS, AND BY SIZE OF CONTAINERS

F-3

Table F-1Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported U.S. shipments, bychannels of distribution, 1998-2003

* * * * * * *

Table F-2Certain preserved mushrooms: U.S. imports, by container size and source, 1998-2003

COUNTRY 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)<= 255 grams (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 0 0 0 0 0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,254 146 2,685 12,058 6,786 27,655 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,155 11,638 10,544 7,163 7,055 5,711 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 24,490 25,098 26,704 21,186 21,517 21,504 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 49,958 36,883 39,933 40,408 35,358 54,871 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 11,018 19,976 29,698 21,530 22,478 19,974 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,975 56,859 69,631 61,937 57,836 74,845> 255 grams (2): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,457 0 0 0 0 0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,792 174 5,644 7,306 13,808 20,483 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,404 20,384 23,895 22,316 16,830 21,299 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 2,176 3,998 2,340 1,230 1,070 725 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 43,829 24,556 31,879 30,851 31,708 42,508 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 10,796 25,687 35,438 25,932 25,071 22,864 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,625 50,243 67,317 56,784 56,780 65,371Total imports: Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,516 0 0 0 0 0 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,046 320 8,330 19,364 20,594 48,139 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,559 32,023 34,439 29,479 23,885 27,010 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 26,666 29,096 29,043 22,417 22,587 22,230 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 93,786 61,439 71,812 71,259 67,066 97,378 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 21,814 45,663 65,136 47,462 47,549 42,838 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,600 107,102 136,948 118,721 114,615 140,216

Share of quantity (percent)<= 255 grams (1): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 45.7 32.2 62.3 33.0 57.4 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0 36.3 30.6 24.3 29.5 21.1 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 91.8 86.3 91.9 94.5 95.3 96.7 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 53.3 60.0 55.6 56.7 52.7 56.3 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 50.5 43.7 45.6 45.4 47.3 46.6 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.7 53.1 50.8 52.2 50.5 53.4> 255 grams (2): Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.1 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.8 54.3 67.8 37.7 67.0 42.6 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.0 63.7 69.4 75.7 70.5 78.9 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 13.7 8.1 5.5 4.7 3.3 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 46.7 40.0 44.4 43.3 47.3 43.7 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 49.5 56.3 54.4 54.6 52.7 53.4 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.3 46.9 49.2 47.8 49.5 46.6Total imports: Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 All other . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(1) HTS 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, and 2003.10.0037 during 1998-2001; HTS 2003.10.1027, 2003.10.0131,and 2003.10.0137 during 2002-2003. (2) HTS 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, and 2003.10.0053 during 1998-2001; HTS 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147,and 2003.10.0153 during 2002-2003. (3) Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

F-4

G-1

APPENDIX G

ADDITIONAL PRICE DATA

G-3

Table G-1Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic andimported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2002-December2003

* * * * * * *


* * * * * * *


* * * * * * *

Table G-4Certain preserved mushrooms: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of General Mills’sliced mushrooms in 4.5-ounce glass jars, by source, by quarters, January 1998-December 2003

* * * * * * *